The sitting begun and suspended on Monday 26 June 2000 was resumed at 10.30 am (Mr Speaker in the Chair).

Public Transport

Mr Joe Byrne: I beg to move
That this Assembly notes with concern the poor state of the public transport system in Northern Ireland and proposes that the Minister for Regional Development should urgently implement a comprehensive and integrated public transport policy to redress this problem.
There is a great debate among the public about the state of public transport. Over the past week the depth of the underfunding crisis in public transport — in particular, the railway network — has been brought into sharp focus by the media, including the ‘Belfast Telegraph’. The severity of the problem has been highlighted, as Members are aware, by Translink’s managing director, who has warned in a letter to employees of Northern Ireland Railways (NIR) that most of the North’s railway network may close down — the exception being the Belfast-Dublin Enterprise line — with the loss of 700 jobs, because of the gravity of the crisis.
This has served to illustrate the gross disparity between Government funding of Northern Ireland’s public transport system and their funding of Britain’s, which is the accumulated result of years of sustained neglect by successive Governments, both Labour and Conservative.
In Northern Ireland, 30% of households do not own cars. The continued fall in the standard of public transport provision is an issue which goes to the heart of the core principles of social justice and our obligation to create a new society rooted in inclusivity, equality of opportunity and access as described in the Good Friday Agreement.
Unfortunately, the present Labour Government’s attitude towards public transport in Northern Ireland is particularly disappointing. It is totally at odds with their own stated policy and their commitment to ensure that public transport becomes a more attractive and accessible option.
The Government’s White Paper on the future of transport, entitled ‘A New Deal for Transport: Better for Everyone’ and published in 1998, stated that there was consensus for a radical change in transport policy. The Deputy Prime Minister and Minster for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, JohnPrescott, said that motorists would not be prepared to use public transport unless it was significantly better and more reliable.
However, in the comprehensive spending review which followed, no extra resources were provided for public transport in Northern Ireland. Public transport is now a devolved matter for which the Assembly has responsibility. It is the remit of the Department for Regional Development to implement for this region a public transport policy which is balanced, sustainable and socially inclusive and has clear and realistic objectives.
The Department’s draft regional strategic framework for Northern Ireland marks an important starting point. It acknowledges that a strategic focus is needed for future transport development. It correctly recognises that the greater travel choice offered by car ownership is not enjoyed by all. The lack of a car can contribute to social exclusion and reduce access to work opportunities and services, particularly for those in rural and disadvantaged urban areas. However, we appreciate that there are no easy solutions to this problem. The Regional Development Committee has been discussing the issue over recent weeks.
Real change in Northern Ireland’s public transport system will be achieved only if more money is made available and can be allocated within the context of a public transport policy which is receptive to other sources of revenue. It must also be sustainable and integrated with the public transport system on the island as a whole to maximise the most efficient use of scarce resources. It is this sort of comprehensive and balanced approach to public transport which will not only improve the economic regeneration of the region but will also — and this is important — protect the environment and enhance the quality of life of the population generally. We had a better railway system at the start of the twentieth century than we have at the start of the twenty-first century, because of the number of lines that have been closed.
As someone who comes from Omagh, I remember when the railway from Derry through Strabane and Omagh to Portadown closed in 1964. I contend that that brought serious disadvantage to our area.
The state of our railway network dramatically underlines the extent of the current problem. According to several public surveys, customer satisfaction with the quality of service still leaves much to be desired. For example, the spring independent monitoring update conducted by PricewaterhouseCoopers on behalf of Translink revealed a decrease in the performance ratings for NIR with respect to overall customer satisfaction with both trains and the conditions of stations. Trains are now running with fewer carriages, and passengers are travelling in overcrowded conditions. Although at the moment Translink operates a relatively safe railway network, this cannot continue indefinitely given the present lack of investment. There is a risk to public safety. Recently Translink commissioned a report into safety. The reality is that our railways are safe, but only because trains move quite slowly.
Back in March the British Government announced a massive £52 billion investment in Railtrack over the next 12years. Similarly, the Government in the Republic followed the advice in a report produced for them by International Risk Management Devices and acknowledged that £500 million was needed to upgrade safety systems on the CIE network.
Public subsidies in other EU member states are also significantly higher than those in the North of Ireland. For example, the level of subsidy in Germany’s rail network is more than 10times the amount accorded to NIR. There is a glaring gap between the Government’s rhetoric on public transport and the reality of the issue. According to Translink’s submission to the Northern Ireland Affairs Select Committee, Northern Ireland Railways sees only a fraction of the financial support given to the privatised companies in Britain. For example, in 1997-98 the rail network in Britain was subsidised to the level of £33·20 per capita, whereas the level in Northern Ireland was £5·50 per capita. Other comparisons show further disparities. For example, in 1998 NIR received 5·28p per passenger mile, by comparison with Scot Rail, which received 22·1p per passenger mile. Railways operating in the Cardiff area received 35·8p per passenger mile, those in Liverpool 41.5p, and those operating in the Isle of Wight 64·5p.
Overall, the public money payable by the Government to NIR has declined by 3% in recent years from a low base. The impact of this lack of investment upon the rail network is far reaching and has serious implications for the quality and safety of the service that Translink is able to provide. The report commissioned by Arthur D. Little, experts in rail safety, which was published in March, contained 121 recommendations. It concluded that £183 million was needed for new passenger rolling stock, trains, repairs to bridges, sea defences and new signalling and safety equipment. Almost half of the rail network needs to be relaid. The sum of £72 million is needed for new trains and six new bridges; other structures are needed at a cost of £67 million; and £25·5 million is required for the modernisation of signalling equipment, safety systems and the upgrading of crossings.
The financial position of NIR is stark. Northern Ireland estimates for the year 2000-01 allow only £8·27million for capital expenditure. According to Translink, it cannot afford to purchase new trains and is allowed to spend only £3·4million on the minor refurbishment of carriages, which will extend their useful life by approximately three years at the most. Taking into consideration the withdrawal of trains for repairs — and it is Translink’s stated policy to maintain services — this will mean running trains with only two or three carriages, instead of the normal five, and less frequently. Inevitably, this will cause disruption to services and, in the long term, could result in the eventual closure of part or the entire rail network, except for the Dublin-Belfast line.
The effects of the closure of the railway network on Northern Ireland’s overall transport system would be enormous. Every year approximately six million passengers use the train to get to work. Traffic volumes in Belfast are already increasing by 4% per annum. If sufficient investment is not forthcoming, thousands of cars will be added to our roads. It is estimated that over the next 25 years 70,000 additional cars will be on Northern Ireland’s roads if the present trend continues. It is estimated that every morning an extra 3,000 vehicles would be added to the M1, the M2 and the Sydenham bypass. Closing the Bangor-Belfast line would add an extra 1,000 cars onto the roads at peak times.
Closure of the railway network is not a viable option. The people of the North of Ireland deserve a better deal. The railways task force, which is due to publish its interim report in July, can come to no conclusion acceptable to the wider community other than to recommend a substantial programme of Government investment. This is needed to address the public safety requirements and to ensure the survival of the network.
Although in not quite as severe a crisis as that afflicting our railways, Northern Ireland’s bus services also suffer considerably from a lack of investment. In recent months we have had fare increases of an average of 4·5% — almost twice the rate of inflation — and services have been cut by 3% or 4%. This increases the sense of isolation, particularly in rural areas, among disadvantaged groups, such as the disabled, the unemployed, students and the elderly, who may not own a car, and causes even more traffic congestion in urban areas. Approximately 71% of commuters still opt for a car instead of a bus or train.

Mr Speaker: I ask the Member to bring his remarks to a close as there is a substantial list of Members wishing to speak.

Mr Joe Byrne: The crisis in public transport is such that we in the Assembly must work with the Department of Regional Development and the Executive to face up to the stark reality. I hope that when this debate is concluded there will be successful negotiations to try to bring about a long-term resolution and to develop a strategic framework for public transport in Northern Ireland.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: On a point of order, MrSpeaker. Perhaps you would confirm that the real nub of this debate — finance — cannot be put to the Assembly because of the legislation that governs the matter of moneys here.

Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the Member for raising this question. It is clear that there is not always a full understanding of what matters may be tabled and what matters may not. As Members may recall, section63 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, upon which the Assembly is based, makes it clear that no sums may be required from the Consolidated Fund and that no sums may be appropriated by vote, resolution or any other means, except with the approval of the Minister of Finance and Personnel. Therefore, in the event of a motion being laid, or an amendment to a motion, without the approval of the Minister of Finance and Personnel, the Assembly could not vote upon it if it would increase a sum that had been appropriated or require funds to be brought forward.
I can understand that Members may regard this as a restriction when dealing with such a matter, as has been said by MrByrne. However, it is the legal basis upon which we must function. The Member is right to draw it to the attention of the House at this time.
Before we move on, may I draw two or three other matters to the attention of the House. All Members will have had circulated to them the text of a private notice question in the name of MrsMaryNelis. Private notice questions are taken immediately before the Adjournment debate, which under Standing Orders begins at 3o’clock. The only way we can square that circle is, in effect, to stop the procedural clock at that point to allow that private notice question to be taken. It is taken in the usual fashion: the question is put, the Minister responds, a supplementary is taken from the questioner, and other supplementaries are permitted for a time.
I mention all this because this is the first private notice question we have had, and, of course, it is not on the Order Paper. I also want to remind the House that there is a statement from the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety on the fire service. That will be taken at a convenient time, after a number of other debates and before the debate on the Equality Commission this evening. The time is difficult for me to estimate; it will depend on the rest of the discussion.
That takes me to the question of timing for this debate. At the start it was not possible to indicate timings as I did not know how many Members wanted to speak. In the course of the proposer’s speech it became clear that the number is very substantial. Therefore I have little option but to restrict the time available to five minutes for each Member who will speak, 10 minutes for the Member who proposed the motion to wind up, and 20 minutes for the Minister to respond. The Minister will, of course, be given the opportunity to respond at the usual point, which is at the end of the debate, prior to the winding-up speech.
I will have to keep Members to fiveminutes. If more Members come forward they will not necessarily be able to speak. I may not even be able to get through the list I already have. However, we will do our best.

Mr Alan McFarland: Members will know from listening to the radio in the morning that traffic is a problem in the Province. All will be familiar with Sandyknowes, Tillysburn, the Westlink and the M1. Every single morning there are reports of congestion at those points.
Traffic conditions are getting worse all the time. Car ownership in the Province has increased by 400% since 1960, and there are currently over 700,000 cars on the road. Ninety-eight per cent of goods are moved by road. Those who have recently travelled by train will know that most of our trains are old, shabby, prone to breakdown and, certainly on the Bangor line, extremely crowded. From this one can deduce that transport is in crisis, and this has come about as a result of a sustained lack of funding over a number of years. When times got tough transport was regarded as one area where money could easily be saved. We can ask for more money, but, sadly, although there may be some relief in the short term, there probably is not much more available, so we have to look at other solutions.
We need a plan, and, indeed, there is a plan. A regional strategic framework and an integrated transport policy are on the go, and it is to be hoped that they will be with us by the end of the year. Of course, there is a price to pay, and we and the Minister will, I suspect, have some hard choices to make. The regional strategic framework sees a settlement network of the hubs of the two cities, Belfast and Londonderry, with a series of hubs and clusters — the main towns and villages — in a key transport network which will link all these areas, allowing people to move from one to the other quickly on the key transport corridors and, of course, the gateways that lead from the Province, the ports and airports.
Over the next year there are terms you will learn to know and love, because they will govern how most Departments will be dealing with regional matters. For example, the strategic framework includes planning and housing and social development, as well as a number of other areas.
There is a need to reduce car usage and pollution. Government policy accepts this, as was evidenced in a recent report which recommended a 60% reduction in greenhouse gases within 20 years. How do we get out of our cars and into some other form of transport which is less dangerous in terms of pollution? It is very difficult. In rural areas we are, perhaps, looking at small buses, a subsidised taxi system or some other better way of providing rural transport. What happens to school buses during the day when they are not collecting pupils? We are paying for them. Could they not be put to better use? In rural areas people have to use their cars, but in the Belfast travel-to-work urban area it is different.
Here is an opportunity to look seriously at some form of public transport. Every day people travel from Larne, Antrim, Lisburn and Dromore to work in Belfast, and a rail system would be logical; a fast, rapid transport system could be provided which would get people to work quickly and in comfort, allowing them to leave their cars at the station. This happens elsewhere in the United Kingdom and in the Republic, but until we introduce a public transport system that people want to use, they will not abandon their cars. It is a chicken-and-egg situation. The answer is either leasing or some form of public/private partnership. That is the way we must go.

Mr Roger Hutchinson: I welcome this opportunity to speak on the steady decline and lack of investment that has become all too apparent in the public transport system and the roads network throughout Northern Ireland. Roads funding has declined. Real public expenditure on transport has fallen at a rate of 14.5% over the last fiveyears. Independent analysis has revealed an estimated shortfall of £40million per annum in structural maintenance.
Today’s society simply cannot function without roads. In the last 10years traffic volume has increased by an average 2.8% per annum. This is reflected in traffic volumes on many of our roads. This morning I drove the A8 Belfast-Larne route, on which traffic varies from over 18,000 vehicles per day near Corr’sCorner to approximately 10,500 vehicles per day south of the A757 junction. That does not include freight traffic from the ports of Larne and Belfast. It is staggering that, by 2005, car ownership in Northern Ireland will reach one million. There is a need for an improved roads infrastructure and transport system Province-wide.
Northern Ireland has a £13billion roads network. That is one of our most valuable assets. Major structures such as bridges, which make up 10% of that asset, are inadequately funded. The structural maintenance of that network is of paramount importance to the economic and social well-being of our Province. There is a need to identify, maintain and develop our main commercial routes, giving priority to the key transport corridors. There is no doubt that substantial investment is required in order to promote economic growth and to improve road safety by bringing about a reduction of one third in the number of fatalities and serious injuries that occur on our roads. Higher priority must also be given to the needs of pedestrians, cyclists and those using public transport, particularly in a climate of spiralling fuel costs and increased taxes on car users.
However, it makes little sense to encourage motorists off the roads and on to an inadequate rail system. LordDubs, a former Environment Minister, described Northern Ireland’s rail system as a complete shambles. Concern has grown over declining levels of service across the Province. This week’s fact-finding exercise by the railways task force will no doubt confirm the public’s lack of confidence in the current provision. Miles of track needs to be relaid. Many trains are 30years old. It is anticipated that 29 train sets are needed to maintain existing services, but by the end of next year only 24 will be available, thus resulting in a reduction of services and the possibility of line closures.
Talk of the truncation or withdrawal of railway lines such as we have had in recent weeks conjures up negative images of this important medium of transport and reinforces the idea that the public perception of the rail system is very negative. ADLittle’s safety report tells us that the Northern Ireland railway system is just about safe. It also says that there is a need for an investment of £183million to be phased in —

Mr Speaker: Order. I fear that your time has passed.

Mr Conor Murphy: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. When I heard the discussions about this debate on the radio this morning I was worried that the issue of whether the DUP is in the Executive — and the impact this could have on funding — was in danger of obscuring this vital debate on the crisis in public transport.
I raised this issue with the Minister of the Regional Development Committee at the start of the year. I was encouraged to hear that he was initiating a comprehensive 10-year strategy to tackle the issue of public transport instead of the ad hoc approach which has been adopted by direct rule Ministers in the past. There is no doubt that there has been massive under-investment in public transportation over many years. This is in contrast to patterns both in Britain and in the South. The draft regional development strategy does not give enough consideration to the operating of the railway network, or to the provision of bus lanes, bicycle lanes, or park-and-ride services. There is an absence of achievable targets for shifting transport patterns from cars towards public transport. In the urban areas in particular, restrictions on car use would enhance the demand for public transport.
The knowledge that car ownership will double here in the next 25years should give a sense of urgency to this. The free transport system piloted in the Castlereagh and Newry and Mourne council areas, and which also exists on the North/South line, should be quickly extended to the remainder of the Six Counties. Public transport must be easily accessible to disabled persons and to parents with small children. Attention should be given to the upgrading of rural public transport systems in the draft strategy, and any future public transport strategy must be integrated on a North/South basis. These policies should also take into account the particular developmental needs of the west and south of the Six Counties — something that appears to be lacking in the regional strategic framework.
A Cheann Comhairle, the current traffic congestion and the anticipated traffic nightmare over the coming years dictates that a grooming of the public transport system must take place as a matter of urgency. I look forward to an imaginative public transport strategy being produced by the Minister and to its early implementation. Go raibh maith agat.

Mr David Ford: I welcome this debate, and I congratulate JoeByrne on putting forward the motion. In his introduction he mentioned the needs of rural areas. As somebody whose summer holidays used to begin with a trip on the GNR to Newtownstewart, I agree entirely with the need for decent public transport in rural areas, as found in his constituency.
He also mentioned the needs of deprived inner-city areas. He actually left some areas out of the equation — areas which are, to some extent, suffering the greatest problems of congestion at the moment. I am talking about suburban areas like my constituency in South Antrim. It is absolutely clear that we will not have a decent system to enable people to commute into Belfast from areas like Newtownabbey and Antrim unless a decent public transport system is developed. There is supposedly a good motorway connecting this constituency with Belfast, yet all Members who live in the north or the north-west complain about the congestion at Sandyknowes, which they experience every morning coming here. These problems have been exacerbated by the development of housing in commuter towns and in suburban areas without any commensurate increase in the public transport infrastructure.
I have a few suggestions which I would like the Minister to consider. He has heard a few other suggestions from me and will doubtless hear a few more over the coming years. There is a fundamental problem with the way the Treasury operates. I know we are not supposed to be talking about that this morning, but I will get my cheap jibe in anyway. The fact that Translink is handing cash reserves back to the Treasury at a time when it cannot buy buses and trains is a scandal. That is the only conceivable word for it. It is time that we in the Assembly decided whether we have the power to judge those decisions. We need to tell the Treasury that we think this is a scandal, and we need to do so with a united voice.
We clearly need to move much further with regard to integration. Combined bus and rail tickets should not be too difficult for Translink to introduce. Last week a senior officer of the Assembly said to me in Donegall Square that it was nice to see a public representative using public transport. However, like most of us, I am a bit of a hypocrite because I do not use it very often. I discovered last week that to come from Templepatrick on a Ballymena express bus and go back to Templepatrick on an airbus requires two tickets. One cannot use a return ticket on the two different services. It is really time that Translink introduced integrated ticketing to include railways and all bus services and put an end to this ludicrous situation.
We need to stop giving lip service to the public transport system and start getting real about the problems of private cars. We seem to run frightened of the roads lobby, but we need to go out and talk to our constituents. There are plenty of houses, I know, within my constituency with two cars sitting outside.
The people wish that they did not need both the cars — one staying at home during the day for family use, and the other being used to get to work in Belfast.
There is no doubt that until we start to provide an element of the stick alongside, and preferably slightly behind, the carrot of improved quality of public transport, we are not going to deal with that issue. We need measures like quality bus corridors, but we also need to tackle the issue of congestion charging by parking charges or other means. We need to consider some of the ideas that people like Transport 2000 have advanced on the issue of out-of-town shopping centres and the associated major problems of free parking and the destruction of town and city centres.
I have one specific suggestion to put to the Minister, and I understand that it is entirely within his remit. It is time that public transport policy be no longer regarded as an adjunct of the Roads Service. It is time for the Roads Service to be an agency administering an integrated transport policy, or part of an integrated transport policy, for his Department. It should not be something in which buses and trains are subservient to the car. We need to get the mindset right, and Members in the Chamber should start doing something about it. If we do not, we will be a little hypocritical in preaching at others. We need to set the example.

Mr John Dallat: Some time ago I visited Berlin. The whole road and rail infrastructure was being rebuilt following the collapse of Communism in the east. Roads and railways were being linked up again to create a modern network, bringing immediate economic and social benefits, and protecting the environment from the pollution of the past. Above all, the new investment was designed to target the social needs of the east, which had been so neglected under the communist system.
In Northern Ireland much has been done since the ceasefires. Border roads have reopened, and the new Enterprise trains have transformed rail travel between Belfast and Dublin, with obvious advantages for the towns in between. The City of Derry Airport is slowly but surely building up new business which is adding to the value of the north-west as an attractive place in which to invest. However, there is a downside. Officials from the Department for Regional Development are currently touring council chambers showing a set of slides to elected members. The slides would be an embarrassment to any Government Department. They tell the sad tale of a rail and road infrastructure in serious decline and, in some cases, literally disappearing. They show rusty old trains, with matching tracks and bridges, and roads that are breaking up without the money to replace or repair them.
Councils are being asked for their views in helping to pay for these. Are we back to the tollroads of the medieval past, or is someone going to get serious about the problems confronting us? Why can Northern Ireland not build up its infrastructure that has been so badly neglected under 30years of direct rule? Why does the Minister for Regional Development not have the same vision for the future as the people of Berlin? Why is he not sitting down with his fellow Ministers in the Executive? Why is he refusing to take part in the North/South bodies with his Colleagues from all parties, so that, together, we can begin the process of creating a new, modern road and rail infrastructure that will give life to our economic and social development strategies for the future? Instead, he is creating uncertainty by telling us that he will resign from his post. Of course, we have now learnt that even if he wants to stay the newly appointed "Pope" will sack him anyway.
How can this nonsense help the people of NorthernIreland, who have a right to expect political leaders to rebuild what has been destroyed or neglected? A modern transport system is vital to the country’s future. We cannot deliver on our promises to target social need, create equality or protect the environment if large parts of the North are suffering from serious decline. The Belfast to Derry line is critical to the success of the North and the north-west. There is a strong case for developing fast and modern road transport corridors between the west of Ireland and the North. We need to do what the people of Berlin did and seriously begin to rebuild and develop what has been neglected.
Yes, there was a time when it was customary to boast of the modern roads of the North and to scorn the winding, twisty roads of the South. But that is the past.
The Republic of Ireland is currently spending £2 million per day on roads alone. Most of the money is their own; it is not European Union money. They are planning to upgrade their railways to the highest European standard, because they know that that is the only way to build a modern economy — one which addresses social need and delivers prosperity to everyone. We can do it too, but we cannot afford the luxury of a Minister who is hopping in the corner, or worse still, out in the cold. Let us take a leaf out of the book of the Germans or, indeed, of the Irish, and get real. We have lived in the world of pretence for far too long.

Mr James Leslie: I welcome the opportunity to address this motion. For reasons already pointed out, it is of particular interest to myself and anybody living in the North Antrim constituency who needs to travel to Belfast. As we look forward to the reopening of the Bleach Green line, it would be a great shame if the opportunity for a faster rail link to the north and north-west — which would appeal to many people — were not properly seized because of the poor state of the rest of the infrastructure relating to it. However, the possibility of greater demand for that service would lead to the prospect of extra revenue being generated, which in turn would help ease the obvious capital spending problems. Those of us who live north of the dual carriageway build line on the A26 are acutely aware of the attraction of being able to use the railway as an alternative.
I suspect that the Minister, in his response to this debate, will be quite tempted to start with the refrain "Well, if you have the money, I have the time," because essentially we are looking at a capital spending problem. We have to be aware, however, that should more money become available for capital spending, there will be immediate competition between all the capital spending departments to get their hands on it. Therefore the prospects for the transport system would be much better if that Minister were present to fight his corner in the Executive Committee. For that reason I think that it is incumbent upon those Ministers with major capital spending programmes to investigate all the avenues of private finance to see what can be done to stretch the public purse further. The fact that there is a bottleneck of commuters coming from the north into Belfast creates an opportunity in itself. I believe there is now a sufficient volume of people trying to travel in and that there is a commercial opportunity to provide an alternative — probably on rails, but possibly by bus — that deserves serious investigation.
Another aspect of the transport issue relates to some of the points raised in yesterday’s debate on the Industrial Development Board. The Minister, Sir Reg Empey, made the point — and it needs to be made again and again — that it is not, and should not be, the business of the Government to tell business where it should go. Business makes that decision for itself. What government can do is to enable people to go to where the business, the jobs and the opportunities are, and that is a key role of transport policy. Take as an example the world’s most successful economy — the United States. Perhaps the defining characteristic of that economy is the complete mobility of labour. People go to where the work is; they do not expect work to be brought to them. We should take the same attitude in Northern Ireland. That does not mean that there are not opportunities to create work more widely throughout the province. I believe that there are. It is a question of being able to move the other ingredients that are required in and out of those areas. That is the job of transport policy.
Finally, I wonder whether this Assembly should set an example in relation to flexible working hours. In other cities where I have worked, that is one of the ways in which bottlenecks have been dealt with. There has been a willingness, particularly in the service industry, which has the scope to do this, to offer people different working days and different start and finish times. I have referred to this before in debates in the Assembly. The Assembly and its staff frequently have to work on Sunday as a consequence of the rather optimistic start time on Monday. This causes great difficulties for your office, Mr Speaker, and for the Whips’ office. I wonder whether the Assembly should not contribute to easing the rush hour problems by starting later and finishing later.

Mr William Hay: I support the motion. We were all elected to the House a few years ago. Most who came here were councillors, and some of us still are. The underfunding of our roads and our public transport system is no surprise to councillors. It was only when we came here that we realised the seriousness of the underfunding. When Roads Service officials came on their annual visits to councils we lobbied them for more funding for our areas, and rightly so.
The Roads Service has a budget of £163·3 million for this year, and that only represents 50% of what is needed. That is very serious. We have significant growth in car ownership and funding has been decreasing for many years. We need to look seriously at the development of our main commercial routes and give priority to key transport corridors in NorthernIreland.
We were told a number of months ago that a lot of these projects right across Northern Ireland could only be funded by the sale of Belfast port. We should congratulate the Minister and his Department. Decisions have not been made on Belfast port, but nevertheless work is about to start on some of the projects and others are included in the programme.
Our public transport system is in a serious crisis, and the Minister for Regional Development has been making the Regional Development Committee aware of the seriousness of the situation. He has been to the Committee on a number of occasions. Many documents have been drawn up over the last number of years on funding public transport. The Little report has been mentioned, and it is going to take £183million for some of the recommendations in that report to be funded. We are now waiting for a report that was commissioned by the former Minister, which was a total waste of time — we have had enough documents. We know what needs to be done, and we can only get a properly funded public transport system in Northern Ireland through additional funding.
Over the next months difficult decisions will have to be taken on raising additional funds. We will have to explore other ways of raising funds, and Members will find that to be painful.

Mr Speaker: I am afraid that your time is up.

Mr Gerry McHugh: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I wish to speak in favour of the motion. The subjects of roads and transport are interlinked with investment, economic development services, health, hospitals and equality of access for the disabled and the aged, and I make a case for the area west of the Bann against a mindset that seems to believe that the world ends at the M1.
There is a need to decentralise, rather than centralise, jobs and industry to allow an equal spread of investment and jobs right across the area. We face an increase in population to 1·7million by 2025. We have one of the fastest growing regions in Europe and the most youthful population in Europe, with an estimated increase of 180,000 persons by 2025. An additional 100,000 jobs will be required. There will also be a corresponding demand for services, infrastructure, jobs, housing and hospitals. The number of vehicles will rise to over one million by 2025, with an accompanying impact on the environment, traffic congestion and the quality of life. Traffic in Belfast is rising by 4% year after year.
In the west, the strategy for development is relevant to a cross-border area of around two million people. Indigenous industries such as agriculture and textiles have been eroded. Local jobs are needed to counteract this with development hubs at county level. We need investment in infrastructure as the car is a necessity in rural areas. There is no choice. No other type of transport is available, and it is unlikely that there will be any in the future.
While bids for funding have been made for railways, there are no railways in the west. My Colleague PatDoherty has been working to try to develop something of this nature via the South. If jobs are not to be located locally, can we have the option of the west as a commuter belt? Is this what we want: a region in the west that is dormant, and another in the east that is overdeveloped? Or do we want a society where people have real choice and equality?
Fermanagh’s seriously underfunded roads budget for both maintenance and major projects — although we have had no major projects there for many years — is £150,000. This compares with about IR£8 million per year for Cavan, which is just across the border. Fermanagh has more miles of roads than any other of the six counties. All we are asking for is our fair share — that is all that we expect. There are cross-border strategic gateways and corridors that could be funded collaboratively with the Southern Government.
In conclusion, we need to achieve a balance of sustainable development through a strategic approach to the future. Fundamental to the overall success of a regional development strategy is the need to develop a modern integrated transport network. It is important that this strategy provide, through implementation of ‘Shaping our Future’, a balanced spread of development that meets the needs of everyone, east, west, urban and rural.
The Minister for Regional Development, Peter Robinson, broadly endorsed the strategy published in ‘Shaping our Future’, but he needs to ensure that it will be implemented equally across all the areas, east and west. Although he does not sit in the Executive, I ask him, since it is his job, to ask those in the South for any funding he can obtain. Councillors are making similar types of bids.
That is the direction in which we should be going. We should be looking for funding from any source that can help us to provide gateways and corridors which access border and cross-border areas that are relevant to us all and which will make the budget go that much further. Go raibh maith agat.

Ms Jane Morrice: I support the motion, and I publicly endorse all statements describing the dire state of our public transport network and the dire need for urgent action to allow us to catch up on 30 years of serious, unacceptable and dangerous neglect.
I could raise many issues this morning, but because of time limitations I prefer to focus on a prime example of the type of neglect I have described. That, not surprisingly, is the Bangor-Belfast railway line.
A few months ago I attended a public meeting on the rail crisis in Bangor. I was shocked to hear the extent to which passenger needs have been totally disregarded.
The stories involved schoolchildren left waiting in the dark when the train broke down — we are not talking about minutes, but hours. Worried parents did not know where the children were. There were also stories about overcrowding and serious delays, sometimes on a daily basis, and about the lack of communication with passengers when problems arose.
The most important criticism is the serious compromise to the standards of safety posed by outdated, outmoded rolling stock that has been running longer than 99% of the cars on our roads. Is it any wonder that thousands of commuters travelling from Bangor to Belfast every day prefer to use their cars, rather than public transport? You have only to look at the Bangor road at rush hour to see the result — cars bumper to bumper, traffic jams and many of those cars containing only the driver. There is something wrong with our system.
The Roads Service is building a cycle lane on the Bangor-Belfast road, and I welcome that. However, those cyclists will soon be wearing oxygen masks as they travel up and down the road.
When we talk about the need for better public transport I do not need to remind anyone of the dangers that traffic congestion poses in terms of road accidents, fatalities and the devastating effect that it has on the environment. We need a major injection of funding for all public transport systems. I am not just referring to the Bangor to Belfast line. We need to open up other routes, reinstate old routes and have, as has been suggested, integrated transport networks, integrated ticketing, innovation, and new ideas coming into this system.
The public must be encouraged to use public transport. It should be fast, efficient, clean, cheap and accessible to all — a simple recipe. The use of European funds has been mentioned, but I believe that our public transport system should have the support of direct government funding. These matters should not be left to Europe alone. It is true that, when it comes to public transport, the continental Europeans understand people’s needs. I was in Barcelona recently and I took a train at 11.30 pm. It was packed with young people, and classical music was being piped to them.
Why do we always have to accept second best? We deserve better. This issue undoubtedly unites the Assembly. Our Regional Development Minister has the power and the ability to do something fast and do something now. Let us go for it.

Mr Alban Maginness: Undoubtedly, public transport has been the Cinderella of Government policy for the past three decades. When we look at how public transport has been treated — the severe underfunding — and at the result of under-investment, in terms of road congestion and severe transportation problems, we see a baffling history of neglect on the part of Government. We see how short-sighted Governments have been in relation to public transportation. Public transportation was starved of adequate funding. It was by deliberate Government choice. It was not accidental — it happened because Governments wanted it to happen. Governments emphasised the private motor car at the expense of a proper public transportation system.
We have an opportunity to put right that historic wrong, given our new Assembly and Administration. We can create a state-of-the-art transportation system — the most modern public transportation system in this part of Europe — if we put our minds to it and if we get the necessary funding.
We have heard about the underfunding of our transport system. We know that it will take at least £183million to bring our railway system up to an adequate standard. We need at least another £40million for new buses and we need more money on top of that. We have a real problem with funding, but it can be done if we bring an imaginative approach to the whole problem of transportation. That is the task that the Department for Regional Development should set itself to, ably assisted by the Regional Development Committee, and I hope we can persuade the Administration to provide the necessary funding. If we do not do that we will create an even worse situation in the future. We need a good public transportation system because it is pivotal for economic growth in our society. It is not a luxury, an add-on or an extra. It is vital to economic growth.
However, I am disturbed by a number of things. First, the European money that has been earmarked for NorthernIreland does not seem to include an allocation for transportation, whether public or otherwise. I view that matter with grave concern. Secondly, the inherent conservatism in the Regional Development Department in relation to dealing with the problem is also of concern. Thirdly, I regret the fact that, under present accountancy rules in the Department of Finance and Personnel, moneys are clawed back from Translink — that is absolutely and utterly wrong.
We need a novel approach to those accountancy rules and a more imaginative attitude to the whole question of leasing, which is vital to the development of our system. The task force has blighted the development of our public transport system. I shall end by saying —

Mr Speaker: Order. I am afraid the time is up. I must be extremely strict with everyone.

Mr Alban Maginness: Mr Speaker, I was going to say —

Ms Jane Morrice: Could the Assembly give the Member leave to finish his speech?

Mr Speaker: No, it would not be correct to say that the Assembly may give such leave. The decision on time allocation was made at the beginning of the debate, and we must stick to it.

Mr Ivan Davis: I should like to begin by congratulating the Minister on the start that he has made in his Department. As previous Members have said, given the lack of Government funding over the past few years, it is good to see a home-grown Minister in that Department.
I should like to endorse the thrust of the motion, particularly its emphasis on the integration of transport, not only so the left hand knows what the right hand is doing but to anchor transport within a holistic approach to regional development.
A transport debate may not set the Assembly alight in the way that other issues can, but it is an essential element in realising the goal of a more prosperous Northern Ireland that pays ever more attention to the preservation of natural habitat. Over the past few years, Northern Ireland has had to cope with the twin problems of a decline in our traditional industries and the effects of terrorist violence on economic investment. Diversification will counter the worst effects of the former, and we trust that we shall see a permanent end to the latter one day soon. However, if our inherent disadvantages as a peripheral region of the United Kingdom and the European Union are to be minimised, local industry’s competitive costs must be maintained. An aim, for which the realisation of an efficient transport network is key.
We should value the integration that already exists between the bus and rail networks under the Translink umbrella. I dread mainland privatisation being visited on us here. The bus and rail systems must be built up to improve the use of public transport, and improvements to the road network should not be seen as an alternative to public transport, but as complementary to it. In particular, I am conscious of the Belfast metropolitan area’s poor performance with park-and-ride schemes compared with the performances of cities of a similar size elsewhere in the United Kingdom. I hope that the Department at least, will look at parking provision at railway stations so that an entire journey need not be made by car.
Like other Members, I have priorities for transport spending, and I realise that there is no bottomless pit of resources. As we all know, in my area of Lisburn we have been very supportive of alternative funding mechanisms to pay for necessary improvements. We can no longer expect the public purse to provide all the improvements we wish to see. Companies in Northern Ireland must provide cheap, quick access for business to ports and airports to facilitate the import and export of goods and raw materials, particularly from east to west. The easiest access to ports and airports is also essential if we are to enhance Northern Ireland further as a tourist destination.
In particular, we should be paying more attention to the role of our ports and airports in addressing the economic, transport and environmental needs of the Province. To make the best use of them we need to see more integration between travellers and public transport systems. For instance, although the main airport at Aldergrove is well situated in terms of the economic hub of Northern Ireland, it is poorly served by public transport. Equally, roads and rail links to our main ports are in need of further improvement.
I am sure we would all encourage the wider use of the public transport network. However, I am glad that there is at last a growing realisation in Government circles that the needs of rural and urban areas are different. I am convinced that through increased integration and more use of private finance, Northern Ireland can maintain its economic progress and meet the needs of its rapidly growing population.
I support the motion, and I trust that the Department will pay full attention to the views expressed by the Members here today.

Mr Mervyn Carrick: The subject matter of the motion has been much reviewed. There have been at least five reports since 1995. We have had ‘Transportation in Northern Ireland: The Way Forward’, which was followed by ‘Developing an Integrated Transport Policy’ in 1997. In 1998 we had ‘Moving Forward’, a Northern Ireland transport policy statement, ‘A New Deal for Transport: Better for Everyone’, and then ‘Shaping our Future’, which also refers to transport issues. There have been many fine words and, of course, many laudable objectives, and the problems have been well and truly identified.
Nevertheless, public transport in Northern Ireland is still in a state of crisis, and as the motion before us says, it is in a poor state, no matter how you look at it. The infrastructure is poor, existing roads need upgrading and trunk road links are required. There are 210 miles of track that need to be upgraded — the system is now reduced to five lines. There are 58 railway stations and halts that need to be upgraded, and additional premises are required. I welcome the investment in the A1 outside Banbridge. I thank the Minister for that but remind him that a railway halt is required at Craigavon, and station improvements are needed at Portadown and Lurgan.
Not only is there poor infrastructure; there is also poor equipment. Due to chronic under-investment the railway system is literally falling apart. One only has to look at Northern Ireland Railways’ background information to the railways task force to have that confirmed. The position is dire. Safety is at risk, and it is imperative that we do something and do it soon.
As well as poor infrastructure and poor equipment, there is also poor service. I have complained about unreliability — trains arriving late and not being able to make the connections — and dilapidated furnishings. Some of the trains are dirty, and there are timetabling problems. All these issues have to be addressed. Of course, people in rural areas do not have these problems because there are no trains running in some of those areas. The people there are disadvantaged.
There have been five important transport publications by the Government, and there is another one in the making. All have identified the need and concluded that further substantial investment is required. For instance, the 1998 document ‘Moving Forward’ noted that
"substantial further investment will be needed in the strategic roadwork in the first quarter of the next century."
We are now in the next century and still we need to get the funding in place. The underlying thrust of the motion is that additional funding is required. Doing nothing is not an option; we must move from policy into reality. An integrated, sustainable transport strategy will only succeed when viable, efficient, alternative modes of public transport are available, and this will only come about with substantial investment.
There are, of course, a number of other contributory factors which, if implemented, will assist in the delivery of an integrated sustainable transport system.
A fundamental part of the strategy should be to reduce the need to travel by planning developments closer to services and amenities, by using brown-field sites and by encouraging a willingness among employers to accept, and indeed promote, flexible working arrangements, including working from home.
The key to improving public transport systems is the funding issue. The 1998 ‘Moving Forward’ document refers to better buses and services, better railways, better transport for tourism, better movement of goods, better taxis and better access to transport by air and sea. This cannot happen without substantial investment. We have thought about this, written about it and spoken about it — it is now time to act.

Mr Mitchel McLaughlin: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Chomhairle. In addressing this issue, it is clear from the comments made today that there is considerable common ground between all of the parties on each side of the Chamber. We are clear on the problems that we must address. We are of the view that we are adequately served, at present, by the continuing development and expansion of our seaports and the international and regional airport system. It is when we come to the question of the road infrastructure and the rail systems that we can see the consequences of years of neglect and underfunding.
The Minister for Regional Development has recently commented that the transportation system is simply unacceptable. Whether or not this is the first occasion, I want to state publicly my agreement with that view. The infrastructural deficiencies are strangling our economic potential, and that has been commonly reflected in all of the contributions this morning. We are all only too aware of the significant capital funding and revenue issues that arise while we are discussing adequate responses to this. The Minister has a genuine difficulty in formulating an effective response within the spending limitations.
The problems in our public transport systems are longstanding. In my view, they emerge from the old Stormont regime. There was an inadequate pattern of regional development policy at that time. That is clear when we consider the history of the development of the motorways. However, that is in the past. Consistent underfunding and under-resourcing during the subsequent period of direct rule has exacerbated these problems.
If all parties indicate a common assessment of the problems, and given the effective capping of capital investment by the British Treasury, then new thinking is required. I urge the Minister, as my Colleague did, to acknowledge the unacceptable nature of the public transport system. He should be prepared to engage in some lateral and innovative thinking. I urge him to take an early opportunity to meet with his counterpart in the Irish Government, to discuss a partnership approach and a strategic development plan for a public transport system for the entire island which would serve the interests, economic and social, of us all. Such a creative and innovative approach would provide unique and effective leverage to access the European Union funding that has been set aside for this specific policy area. I urge the Minister to consider that. That is not meant to be provocative. It is meant to be a reasonable, legitimate and constructive suggestion about how we can resolve this problem, which, we all agree, is strangling our potential for growth. Go raibh míle maith agat.

Mr Billy Hutchinson: Many points have been covered today, and I do not want to reiterate them. I do, however, want to lend my support to some of them, particularly those that MrFord made. There is no question that we need an integrated transport policy; the question is how long we have to integrate it so that we can meet the objectives and have them written into Assembly policy. We need to focus on a ten-year period for achieving this, but we could make a start, and quite quickly too, as DavidFord said, with ticketing. MrFord came up with the good example of the Ballymena express at Templepatrick, but this is not just about buses. We should also be able to get a ticket that can be used on buses and trains. If those were dovetailed, it would be quite good.
The Little report talked about needing investment of £183million. What shocked me about that £183million is that it was for safety measures alone. To improve the railway system overall, we need £300million, not just £183million. That is a point we need to look at.
I talked to a colleague of mine from Coleraine who travels by car and by train. He tells me that if one travels from Coleraine to Belfast, it takes two hours or more on the train. The same journey can be done by car in one hour and twenty minutes. I do not know whether that involves breaking the speed limit or not, but at least it is in the comfort of one’s car. He also tells me that the train is cold, damp, unattractive and uncomfortable.
We continually talk about wanting to get people out of cars, but how can we do that? We need to have attractive alternatives. I suggest that we need adequately funded public transport. We need priority bus lanes and dovetailing timetables so that public transport can work.
In south Belfast a few weeks ago, Translink decided to introduce new bus stops and a new timetable. The new timetable showed the new bus stops, but the old ticket prices. People got irritated when they found out that they were going to have to pay another 20% per ticket. Also some of the timetables were old ones, so people were at the wrong places at the wrong times. These are just some examples of the problems. There are things that we can do at the very beginning.
We also need to do something about our airports. It has been said that our airports are strategically placed in economic terms, particularly Aldergrove. However, to get from Aldergrove to the city of Londonderry, I understand, is difficult. If one wants to get to Belfast, one can go by the airbus, which is quick. The Minister needs to talk to the management of the airports to find out if they are prepared to pay some of the costs. I think that they would be interested in looking at the costs and at putting some of their money into a rail link. We could have rail links with, for example, Londonderry airport and also the airport at Belfast harbour. We need to pursue those sort of things that would not just help businessmen, or the people who live in Northern Ireland, they would also encourage tourists — many tourists find it hard to get around the Province.

Mr Edwin Poots: This is an interesting debate, and I thank Mr Byrne for bringing it forward. Some Members seem to want to use this debate as a "whinger’s charter". I refer in particular to MrDallat’s very poor and inept contribution. He seeks to blame the Minister for the problems that the railways and roads have had over the years.
We might as well blame MinisterRodgers for the BSE crisis, MinisterFarren for the tuition fees, and Minister Durkan for the lack of money from the British Exchequer. I do not intend to go down the same silly line as MrDallat. It is time that he got real, grew up and moved away from council-chamber politics. He should realise that he is now in a place where he can make decisions, not just whinge and moan about what is going on.
We need to back up what we are saying today. We can tell our local newspapers that we spoke in support of public transport, but did we? Do we support public transport? Are we prepared to put it on the record that we will not take the money that JohnPrescott will allocate to Northern Ireland for its railways and distribute it to health, education, agriculture or some other budget? Are we prepared to earmark that money for the sole purpose for which it was intended, or are we prepared to let it be diverted to other areas? Do we make a statement today but not back it up? I believe we would be failing in our duty if we were to do that. It is evident that public transport needs massive investment — £2billion over the next 10years for the railways alone — and one would then have to look at the bus service.
We have a lot of space in Northern Ireland for the development of our roads and public transport. We cannot do without the roads network. Another £200million a year is needed to maintain our roads in their current condition — never mind carry out major improvements. Are we prepared to pay for this? Are we prepared to do what is required, or are we going to sit back and blame the Minister? There is a saying in our part of the world that you cannot whistle without an upper lip. The Minister needs the money if he is to deliver a good rail network and a good bus service, not only for taking children to and from school, but one which will be used by people travelling back and forward to work. If you want decent roads throughout the Province, the Minister needs the money to implement this. [Interruption] He definitely can whistle. I welcome the commitment to major safety improvements and the undertaking that the railways will not operate unless they are safe. Safety issues are important and the general public may feel that our railways are unsafe. They are not what they should be, and we need to look at safety management, safety culture, operations, structures, the permanent way, signalling and telecoms, level crossings and engineering. All these matters need to be dealt with and improved.
I would like to find out how much terrorism has cost the railway service over the years. I vividly recall, morning after morning, switching on the radio to hear that the Belfast to Dublin line was not running that day because either a device had been planted at Killeen or the trains had been attacked at Lurgan. Various attacks have been carried out over the years, and I would like to know how much it has cost to replace all the buses that were burned out during riots in Belfast and other places.
I would also like to know if this task force serves a useful purpose. My Colleague indicated that there have been five reports over the last five years — it is not reports we need, it is action. Does the task force serve a useful purpose, or did the previous Minister for Regional Development introduce it as an excuse not to make the decisions that needed to be made?
I want to support the motion, but we need more than that: we need the money to back it up.

Mr Speaker: Although a number of Members still wish to speak, we have come to the end of the time allocated for contributions. I therefore call the Minister for Regional Development, MrPeterRobinson.
12.00

Mr Peter Robinson: Many points have been raised during the debate. If I cannot touch on all of them in the course of my response, I shall, of course, do so in writing. I welcome this debate and am grateful to Mr Byrne for availing of the opportunity to raise this issue and start a debate in our community as a whole about this vital issue.
There is common ground among all Members. We have inherited a transport system that is in an appalling state. I am determined to bring about major improvements in public transport and to provide Northern Ireland with the system that it needs and deserves. Substantial additional resources will be required. Members will play an important role in ensuring that public transport receives the necessary share of the Northern Ireland cake. I will return to the matter of resources later.
First, I want to differentiate between funding for buses and for trains. Bus transport receives a relatively low level of subsidy, whereas rail transport requires to be heavily subsidised. This is the case, not just in Northern Ireland, but in Great Britain, the Republic of Ireland and throughout Europe. My Department gives grants to the bus companies to cover fuel duty payments and 50% of the cost of new buses. Our aim is that vehicles be replaced as they reach their target replacement ages: 12 years for coaches, and 18 years for buses.
Over a period this would give average fleet ages of six and nine years respectively, which would be similar to the English average fleet age target of seven and a half years. Our problem is that currently we do not have sufficient resources to grant-aid bus replacements at the rate needed. Consequently, the bus companies have to keep buses in service long after they reach their target replacement age. This is clearly unsatisfactory in terms of customer comfort and bus reliability. In the current year my Department has only £1·7 million for bus purchase grants, while over £20 million would be needed to meet our objective. That gives some idea of the shortfall.
Turning to the more intractable problems of the railways, I am sure that all Members have known for some time that the railways face serious problems. The release of the A D Little review of railway safety last March brought home the scale and immediacy of these problems. Briefly, the review said that while Northern Ireland Railways was currently operating at not unreasonable safety risk levels, an estimated £183 million, plus or minus 30%, would be needed over the next 10 years to maintain safe operation. The review went on to say that most of that £183 million — £117 million, to be precise — would be needed in the next three years. To put these sums in context for Members, last year Northern Ireland Railways — [Interruption]

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr Conor Murphy: Apologies.

Mr Peter Robinson: Last year Northern Ireland Railways received grants and subsidies of just under £20 million. Now we are looking for £117 million over three years. Obviously, if we are to keep the current railway network operating, the Assembly will have to allocate substantial extra resources to it. I will come to the Member’s point in a minute.
When my predecessor, Mr Adam Ingram, was presented with the A D Little report last March, he decided to establish the railways task force to identify the costs and benefits, both monetary and non-monetary, of a range of options for the future of the railway network in Northern Ireland. I suspect that Adam Ingram was wearing his finance and personnel hat, rather than his regional development hat, when he devised those requirements. Be it Adam Ingram or Mark Durkan, the Minister of Finance and Personnel would require any Minister to make a business case for any proposal they were bringing forward that required such substantial finance.
The work of the task force includes a large-scale public consultation exercise, which is currently under way. There have been some complaints about the limited period allocated for the consultation exercise, but Members should realise that the task force must complete its work in time for its conclusions to be considered in this year’s spending review.
The stark reality is that if we do not succeed in obtaining more resources for the railways in the spending review, then a large proportion of the railway network will close down in a piecemeal fashion. Northern Ireland Railways has repeatedly said that it will not run trains unless it is satisfied that it is safe to do so. It has my full support on that.
Unless more resources are allocated to improve the infrastructure of the railways, it will become unsafe to run trains on many lines. Unless Northern Ireland Railways can purchase new trains, the level of service will deteriorate as old trains repeatedly break down and are taken out of service permanently. The motion calls for a comprehensive integrated public transport policy to be implemented. I am in complete agreement with this sentiment, and I will explain the steps I am taking to deliver such a policy.
The preparation of the regional development strategy is nearing completion. It has become clear that the provision of a modern, sustainable, integrated transport system which will facilitate the rapid, efficient, predictable and safe movement of people and goods is a key factor in the successful implementation of the strategy.
Within the Department for Regional Development I have established a dedicated regional transportation division which is tasked to formulate a 10-year regional transportation strategy. I agree with MrB Hutchinson’s remarks. It is essential that we do this on a 10-year basis, which gives us the opportunity to implement decisions taken by the Assembly. The transportation strategy will set out a bold vision for transport, including the expected outcomes and the necessary steps required to achieve these. The strategy will serve as a daughter document to the regional development strategy. Subject to the ultimate approval of the Assembly— and necessary resources — it will have the potential to transform transport in the region, to get the public back on public transport and to provide a modern integrated transportation system that will strive to rival the best in other comparable regions of Europe.
I have alerted the Regional Development Committee to the fact that a sum in the region of £2billion over the next 10years — additional to the wholly inadequate current budget of just over £200million per annum — will be required to transform transportation in the region. This is in the context of a comprehensive presentation which I gave to the Committee on 14June. My Department will happily provide copies of this to Members on request, particularly to those who are seriously interested in tackling these important issues. I have allocated significant departmental resources to service the railways task force established by Adam Ingram. Some 21sub-committees are working on the completion of an interim report, which I will receive at the end of July.
With regard to the future of railways let me be very clear. I have a presumption towards rail. It is an important strategic regional asset, but I will not compromise on the safety of the travelling public and Northern Ireland Railways employees. Either the Assembly will decide to have a modern and positively subsidised rail service that we can all be proud of, or we will, de facto, end up dramatically curtailing that network. The days of indecision are over. The ADLittle review simply confirmed what we have known for years. It is time to put up or close up. For our part we will ensure that the Assembly has the earliest opportunity in the autumn to consider the importance of the railways task force interim report. I trust that the remarks made in support of rail in the House today will, by that time, have been translated into practical action.
I will respond to some of the comments made during the debate. MrByrne, happily, set the scene so well in moving the motion that he has enabled me to leave out many elements of the transport issue as he had already covered them. He made a strong case. He outlined a history of neglect which many Members have agreed with. Under both Labour and Conservative Governments, the money that should have been going into our public transportation system has gone elsewhere. Now we face the consequences of 30years of neglect of the system.
I acknowledge the important role that the Assembly Committee responsible for the scrutiny of the Department for Regional Development has played in regard to this issue. I trust that it will continue to do so as we deal in detail with transportation policy.
The Member referred to the possibility of an additional 70,000vehicles being on our roads over the next 25years. It is going to be something like 10 times that. It will be about 700,000. In the next 20years we expect the number of vehicles on our roads to double. If people consider that there is congestion now, then let them imagine, as the Member for NorthDown did, what congestion will be like in the future.
Mr McFarland referred to the congestion problems that presently exist. He also wisely related the issue of transport to the regional strategic framework. He pointed out the conundrum that we all face in wanting to get people out of their cars and onto public transport, but that they are not going to get onto public transport until we provide them with a comfortable, regular and dependable service. That requires funding. The Member for East Antrim, Mr Roger Hutchinson, brought us back to road issues. He was right to do that, because the majority of our public transport users use buses and the road system and that, therefore, is a key and vital issue. It is an issue that must figure prominently when it comes to the necessity for funding. He mentioned one of my predecessors, Lord Dubs, referring to the shambles. I do not think that a much more appropriate word could be found for what exists, although I can imagine the effect that it had in the Department when he used the term.
In relation to the railways, the Member for East Antrim was right to say that the trains are 30years old, that in many cases the lines need to be relaid, and that if this did not happen, a reduction in services would result.

Mr Oliver Gibson: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Peter Robinson: If the Member is brief.

Mr Oliver Gibson: I welcome the debate. I also welcome the £15million for the A5 road. The SDLP and its cohorts in Sinn Féin grudgingly did not acknowledge it. They said it was only a line on the map. I welcome the provision of the Toome bypass. I further welcome the fact that the A5 is to include the Strabane bypass, the Newtownstewart bypass and the Omagh throughpass, which were all predicted not to happen. Thank goodness for a progressive Minister.

Mr Peter Robinson: I am glad that I gave way. [Laughter] I shall be quite happy to give way again if anybody else wants to make similar comments.
The Member for South Antrim, Mr Ford, made a very useful contribution. I agree with him entirely that, on one hand, I am looking for more funds for railways and buses in Northern Ireland, and, on the other hand, through the Chancellor’s initiative £25million is being clawed away from the Northern Ireland Transport Holding Company and Translink. It just does not make sense, and clearly that issue needs to be addressed. However, I think that the Member will recognise that the emphasis of the Chancellor’s package was one of putting money into roads. The whole emphasis of what I am doing is on telling people that we need to get off the roads and into public transport. Mr Ford also gave me a very good cue when he referred to quality bus corridors.
In the early hours of this morning, while the Member was still in his bed, I was travelling by bus along a quality bus corridor. I recommend it to all the people on the Saintfield Road. The Saintfield Road is the fourth busiest road into Belfast, after the two motorways and the Sydenham bypass. We had a very smooth run on the most up to date transport in a new, quality bus lane. I hope that the public will take advantage of this method of getting into Belfast cheaper and faster than by car. That is the only way that we are going to get people onto public transport.
I thought that some of Mr Dallat’s remarks dragged the debate down a little, and I will leave them to the side. However, I will deal with his comments relating to transport and the comparison with the IrishRepublic.
Proportionately, I wish I had the resources to put into public transport and roads that my counterpart in the Irish Republic has. Do not take the colour coding as being indicative of anything else, but I am green with envy at the funds that are available. It is probably the kiss of death to have a SinnFéin Member saying that he agrees with me during the course of the debate and I will probably be cross-examined by my party leader afterwards.
MrDallat raised a number of issues about public expenditure. In the Irish Republic, public spending is supplemented by European structural funds, and a substantial amount of money comes in from the private sector. If I had had more time I would have gone into that issue and how it has contributed to our situation in NorthernIreland.
As regards the issue of being in the Executive, let me make it clear to Members — and I know they like to make party political points — that the neglect that we have had for 30years comes as the result of Ministers who were in joined-up Government. It did not help them in the past. Perhaps we need somebody outside the Government blowing the whistle, saying what needs to be done on the railways and not being compromised by loyalty to other Colleagues in the Executive. Perhaps Members should rejoice in the fact that they have a Minister who is not tethered by responsibilities to Colleagues in an Executive.
One of my Colleagues asked a question about the cost of terrorism. Apart from the emotional cost to the staff and employees of Translink, £300million has been lost as the result of the destruction of buses, trains, and bus stations. That is without even touching on the issue of the cost of disruption and the loss of money that would have come in using those services. That money would pay for ADLittle, and you would have plenty left over to buy buses as well. It is an important matter.
The issues involved are complex, and the cost implications are considerable. The immediate public transport funding problems can only be solved by increasing the public expenditure allocation from the Northern Ireland block. In this year’s spending review I am seeking an additional £250million for public transport, and that will be necessary for each of the next threeyears. Expenditure on this level will enable us to start improving public transport from its current poor state, and set us on our way to providing a public transport service of a standard which the people of NorthernIreland desire and deserve.
Within weeks the United Kingdom Government will announce the 2000 spending review figures, which will likely signal a significant increase in funding for transport. There has been press speculation that up to £140billion will be made available over the next decade, half of which might come from the private sector. It is essential that we advance the Northern Ireland transport agenda in tandem with any new priority in Great Britain. We must insist that Northern Ireland at least receives the Barnett hypothecation. Northern Ireland must secure the maximum possible benefit from any such public expenditure decisions taken at national level to advance transport. On the assumption that the Barnett hypothecation can be secured for NorthernIreland, those funds must be allocated for the purposes envisaged and not diverted elsewhere. This autumn we will begin to rectify the years of under-investment in transportation and we will thereby reinvigorate our railways, modernise our bus fleet and services, and improve our strategic roads network.
After reading the motion, it is clear that the proposer has managed to get round the constraints, which you referred to earlier, about financial matters. That is because the motion contains a commitment to follow a comprehensive and integrated public transport policy. The commitment is contained in the word "implementing". The motion does not ask for the preparation of a policy because the Member knows we were preparing it. It does not indicate anything about an amount of money because the Member knows that. It calls for implementation, which is the putting in place of financial funds to allow the Minister to carry out the task.

Mr Joe Byrne: I would like to thank everybody who has spoken in the debate. I think there is a consensus of support for the sentiments of the motion. There is no doubt about it, every one of us here and the wider public are extremely concerned about the current state of the public-transport system.
A number of common themes have run through the debate, the most important being public safety. Many referred to the Little report and the areas of concern it flagged up. Translink have stated that on the Bangor to Belfast line, trains that should be able to do 70miles an hour currently cannot travel at that speed for safety reasons. They are currently restricted to doing 50miles an hour, and by the end of next year, if there is no new investment in that line, that speed will be reduced to 30miles an hour. That is the extent of the crisis on one line. Our railway network is small — we have railway lines from Derry to Belfast, from Belfast to Bangor, from Larne to Belfast and the southern line to Dublin — and if it were to be reduced further, it would be a joke.
Public transport is currently very much in vogue. Members and the public at large are talking more and more about the quality-of-life issue; they are talking about the environment, and they are talking about traffic congestion. Several hundred thousand new cars are going to be adding to this congestion over the next 20 years, especially in the Greater Belfast area, and so I am glad that this sort of debate is now opening up and that we are beginning to focus on the real issues.
As someone who comes from a constituency that has no railways whatsoever, I could be asked why I get involved in such a debate. I am the regional development spokesperson for my party, and there is an onus on all of us to consider the problem throughout NorthernIreland and not just in our own home patch.
Northern Ireland’s economic potential was referred to by a number of Members, and I fully agree that if we are going to develop this regional economy, then having an adequate, integrated public transport system is essential. Inward investors are greatly influenced by communications and by transport networks, and those of us who live 75miles from Belfast know the handicap of having a poor transport system in our part of the region and appreciate how that affects us.
A number of Members, including the Minister, made reference to the regional development strategy. This is the most crucial issue that has been raised in Northern Ireland over the last 10years. We are beginning to look at the future. ‘Shaping Our Future’ is the phrase that was used on the original document. There is an onus on the Department and its civil servants to listen to the issues and the concerns of elected representatives, be they councillors, Members of this Assembly or, indeed, MPs. Reference has been made to this dichotomy between bus and rail. Many Members, including DavidFord, mentioned the fact that there needs to be a common ticketing system between rail and bus services — something which should certainly be feasible, since Translink owns and manages both. I hope that that is something they could introduce.
JaneMorrice mentioned the problems that passengers have on the railways, and I fully endorse her comments. Many people have said that timetabling is difficult and that there is no co-ordination between bus and rail. Again I hope that this is something Translink could improve upon.
However we need to pay tribute to Translink, who have been operating for 30years with very little public investment. They have been doing a stitch-up job in managing to keep a system going despite 30years of the troubles, during which buses and trains were bombed. We should, therefore, pay tribute to the Translink staff who managed to keep a public transport system going through the bad times.
There has been much discussion about funding, and we all recognise that massive public investment will be required to address the needs of the public transport system. I contend that, in the past, Ministers in charge of Northern Ireland’s public transport did not fully reflect the concerns and wishes of people who wanted to see greater investment in it. We now have a new devolved Assembly, and this is something that Members will have to face up to.
MrRobinson is the Minister with the luxury of this job, and no doubt he will be the person who will have to lobby strongly for the necessary investment. The Regional Development Committee is convinced that we need investment in public transport, but we do not have executive authority. It is the Executive Committee and the individual Ministers that have to make the case and lobby for this funding. I hope that that will happen and that the funding will be achieved.
A number of Members mentioned the many reports on transport that have been produced, and I fully accept that. MervynCarrick said that there have been five reports since 1995. One could almost say that we are suffering from "reportitis", since there have been so many. But every Member is looking for action.
It is remarkable that the only part of the railway network that has improved has been the Belfast-Dublin railway line — the Enterprise. It has received substantial investment over the past 10 years. The moral is very clear: if there is adequate investment in the railways and buses, more people will use them. With the necessary investment, there is the potential for more people to use public transport. People need to be encouraged to get out of their cars and use public transport, but they will only do that if the alternative meets their needs and is attractive.
We all know — this is especially true of those of us who live in rural areas — that the public transport system is inadequate. For many years I have commented about five bus fleets — education and library board buses — that are largely idle. They are only used in the mornings and evenings, and it seems to me that this is rather wasteful.
A number of Members, including MitchelMcLaughlin, mentioned North/South co-operation. That is one of the benefits of real co-operation on an economic and social level. We cannot run our public transport in isolation, especially those of us who live in the border areas. There needs to be greater co-ordination between services in the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland so that they complement each other, and it will require much greater collaboration to realise that.
The amount of resources required is probably our biggest challenge, but since MrPrescott is the Deputy Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and since the Labour Government regard the use of public transport — the previous Government’s policy favoured road transport — as a desirable policy, we should be able to make a strong case. I hope that the Minister can get together with other Ministers in the Executive, including the Minister of Finance, MrDurkan, and make this strong case. We are all looking for equality of treatment, and, if the application of the Barnett formula is around 40-1, surely we can make that case.
The European Union was referred to in the context of the structural funds, which are extremely important. The Belfast-Dublin railway line was upgraded largely because of European structural funds, and I believe that the Belfast-Bangor line is going to be improved with 75% grant aid from them. I hope that there can be some examination of the transitional programme’s application to Brussels, something else that will require the presentation of a strong, co-ordinated case. I thank Members for their support.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That this Assembly notes with concern the poor state of the public transport system in Northern Ireland and proposes that the Minister for Regional Development should urgently implement a comprehensive and integrated public transport policy to redress this problem.
The sitting was suspended at 12.30 pm.
On resuming (Mr Deputy Speaker [Sir John Gorman] in the Chair) —

Ulster Cancer Foundation Report

Mrs Eileen Bell: I beg to move
That this Assembly welcomes the Ulster Cancer Foundation’s document ‘Cancer Services — Invest Now’ and urges the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to implement, as a matter of urgency, the recommendations contained in the report.
May I start by saying that a delegation from the Ulster Cancer Foundation successfully lobbied at Westminster last week, and were promised support for the document that we are now debating. A delegation will make a presentation to our Health Committee tomorrow. However, we thought it appropriate to debate this motion today so that all Members can hopefully express their support for the funding needed for cancer services. I am delighted, as co-chair of the cross-party group on cancer issues, to present this motion today.
In the Ulster Cancer Foundation’s offices some weeks ago we had the public launch of the document ‘Cancer Services — Invest Now’. It was a moving experience for all who attended. Among the speakers, who included Assembly Members, were patients and carers who told their own stories and experiences about when their cancer was diagnosed. From their contributions, it was obvious that early diagnosis and treatment was vital, and that it was also necessary to have greater support and more information.
It was made clear that proper financial and manpower resources are dangerously — and I use that word deliberately — inadequate for the prevention and treatment of the many types of cancer that are prevalent in Northern Ireland today. It is widely expected that deaths from cancer will outstrip those of Northern Ireland’s other killer, heart disease, in fiveyears time.
Cancer is a condition feared by many, and with good reason. One in three people will be diagnosed with some sort of cancer; one in nine before the age of 45. More males than females die from cancer, and one of the reasons for this is the reluctance of men to go to clinics, which could lead to early detection and successful treatment — a publicity campaign some months ago illustrated that point. Statistics are sometimes misleading, but unfortunately those stating that we have had 8,700 new cases and approximately 3,700 deaths from cancer each year are facts, and if the situation is to change, it is likely that it will not be for the better.
At the risk of being overdramatic — although for the numbers of Members presently in the Chamber it may not be too overdramatic — there is not a Member here today who has not, or will not, experience one form of cancer either personally or through their family or friends.
This was also the case at one of the first meetings of our cross-party group, when each of us gave our reasons, based on our personal stories, for supporting the Ulster Cancer Foundation, which has given 30years of commitment, help and direct support to cancer sufferers and their families. I know that other organisations are also engaged in similar work, and credit must be given to them as well, since without them, even more research and equipment would be needed than is the case at present.
I come now to the terms of the motion. The document ‘Cancer Services — Invest Now’ is a response to the recent report by DrHenriettaCampbell, ‘Cancer Services — Investing for the Future’. The Ulster Cancer Foundation’s report was drawn up in association with leading cancer clinicians such as ProfRoySpence and ProfPatrickJohnston from Belfast City Hospital’s cancer centre, from cancer units and from the excellent patients’ forum of the Ulster Cancer Foundation itself. It heartily supports the Campbell report’s major recommendations, but states that investment for the reorganisation and development of cancer services should happen not in the future, but now. This opinion is based on the day-to-day knowledge and experience of clinicians and on research which clearly points out that patients living in the United Kingdom have approximately a 20%-30% worse survival rate than their counterparts living in countries such as Switzerland and Holland and the USA.
The objectives of the Campbell report are also welcomed, and it is acknowledged that these major changes would result in significant benefits for cancer patients, including, among other things, on-site access to a full range of acute services and a high-quality patient environment, something which is extremely important. Many aspects of the report are being implemented, but there are still problems with the proper training of staff and with providing specialists in, for instance, chemotherapy treatment.
There is also a clear need for more oncologists for actual diagnosis. There are 10 oncologists rather than the 20 or 30 necessary to enable the number of patients we have here to be dealt with expertly and quickly.
Great strides have been made in the reduction of deaths and in the increase of successful outcomes in breast cancer cases, and work is being done on the early detection of other common cancers such as stomach and prostate. The most common type is, of course, still regrettably lung cancer.
Resources must be ring-fenced. I know that the Minister is aware and supportive of this, but expert staff and resources must be put into the new cancer centres as quickly as possible to save lives. We cannot afford to wait. It is estimated that proper implementation of the Campbell report will require £24million instead of the current £13·9million. Such an increase, although massive at first sight, will be well worth it for every family in the Province.
Such investment would directly save lives and improve the situation for cancer sufferers. That is the bottom line of which we must never lose sight. I hope that Members will support the motion.
I have said enough about what is happening, but it would be fitting to end my address by stating the conclusion of the Ulster Cancer Foundation’s document ‘Cancer Services — Invest Now’:
"It is no longer acceptable for us as a society to accept a situation where a set of diseases that affects one in three of our population and results in the death of one in four people is not adequately resourced and tackled in order to bring our survival figures for cancer up to those seen in the best European countries such as Switzerland and Holland or indeed that seen within the United States. It is therefore imperative that we as a society speak out about the inadequacy of resourcing, both in terms of personnel, and the provision and development of this clinical service for patients until such time as this issue is properly addressed."
I hope that Members will support the motion.

Dr Joe Hendron: First, I would like to thank MrsEileenBell and MrPaulBerry for bringing this most important subject before the Assembly.  MrMichaelWoods, the chief executive of the Ulster Cancer Foundation, who is sitting in the Gallery, has given many years’ service in the fight against cancer and is about to retire. I know we all wish him well.
I have no doubt that every Member welcomes the Ulster Cancer Foundation’s document ‘Cancer Services — Invest Now’. We most certainly urge the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to implement as a matter of urgency the recommendations in the report. I would like to thank the Minister for being here for the debate.
The facts are there for all of us to see. The professional experts and statisticians have spoken and action is needed now. Furthermore, I guess that every Member has someone in his immediate or extended family who has cancer or who has died from it. Therefore, we can no longer be complacent. The Ulster Cancer Foundation, Action Cancer, MacMillan Cancer Relief and similar organisations, all deserve our thanks. I cannot help but think of DrGerryLynch who worked for so many years in Belvoir Park Hospital — it used to be called Montgomery House. He played a major role there and has himself succumbed to cancer.
A key concern of patients is waiting time and the uncertainty that produces. I am not just talking about waiting time for the first appointment but about the time spent waiting for test results, for further appointments and for treatment to start. The Calman Hine Report, to which MrsBell has already referred, was the first major report in these islands that attempted to draw the various strands of cancer, diagnosis and treatment together. It was a major report and it led to a re-organisation of cancer services throughout the United Kingdom. Following that, our own Chief Medical Officer, DrEllaCampbell, produced her report, which has also been referred to. Many of her recommendations have been or are being implemented.
The Belfast City Hospital as everyone knows is to contain the main cancer centre for Northern Ireland and be supplemented by four cancer units. Patients should be managed by multi-disciplinary cancer teams. That is a key point in all this re-organisation. That was the reason the move was made to Belfast City Hospital, and those who had loved ones treated in Belvoir Park Hospital felt very strongly about that. Indeed, at one time I supported retaining all the services at Belvoir Park, but I was wrong. The experts on the subject were totally correct, so services including radiotherapy and chemotherapy, are to be situated at the City Hospital. Its cancer registry, on which there has been a major move forward, is to be adequately resourced. It is only in recent times that we have had a register of cancer in Northern Ireland and, indeed, on the island of Ireland. DrAnnaGavin is leading on this. Since we now have a standardisation of the figures for cancer, proper comparisons can be made with the figures of other countries.
With regard to cancer research, Members will know that last year a memorandum was signed at Stormont by the then Health Minister, GeorgeHowarth, the Republic’s Health Minister, BrianCowen, and by the Secretary of Health from the United States.
DrRicKlausner, Director of the National Institute for Cancer at Bethesda in Maryland, played a pivotal role in these matters as did ProfPatrickJohnston, professor of Oncology at Queen’s and ProfRoySpence, senior cancer surgeon at the City Hospital. I am delighted to see the Minister of the Environment here, MrSamFoster, as he was a spokesperson for health at that time. He and I played some small role in promoting that.
While this development is to be warmly welcomed, we must nevertheless face the fact that the amount currently spent on cancer services in Northern Ireland is around £13·9 million, yet it would take about £24 million per year to provide the type of services needed. I agree with the conclusions in the Ulster Cancer Foundation’s document, and this point was also made by MrsBell. It is no longer acceptable for us as a society to accept a situation in which so many people are dying of cancer.
We must bring our survival figures for cancer up to those in other countries such as Switzerland, Holland and the Unites States of America. Prevention is better than cure and early diagnosis usually leads to a much better prognosis. In comparison with cardiovascular disease, it is projected that within the next five years cancer will be the biggest killer in our society.
The Health Promotion Agency and health action zones must be properly resourced to teach our children and young people to have a healthier lifestyle. Much will be said over the coming months about health action zones. Each child and young person should be encouraged to know and understand the European code against cancer. It should be mandatory in the education system that each child be taught the cancer code. I pay tribute to our Chief Medical Officer, DrEttaCampbell, in whose annual report a lot of these matters have been highlighted.
Apart from genetic factors, smoking is by far the biggest cause of cancer in Northern Ireland. Excess and persistent alcohol intake is another factor. Research throughout the world has consistently shown that increasing your daily intake of vegetables and fresh fruit results in better health. I do not have a share in the production of fruits and vegetables, but five portions of fruit and vegetables, in whatever combination, on a daily basis can play a major role in cancer prevention. That point is accepted round the western world and parents should emphasise that to their children. For years, cereals with high fibre content have also been known to help prevent cancer.
Then we have the sun and suntan. A dermatologist in the Belfast City Hospital gave a talk one time on the subject of melanoma and the many deaths that result from melanoma in NorthernIreland. Years ago we remember people in movements in the United States of America saying "Black is beautiful". In relation to melanoma, white is beautiful and people should remember that. I have never seen a happy face lying in the sun on my many holidays. I would love to elaborate on that point, but I am sure that I would be ruled out of order.
Obesity is another factor, and we need to limit fatty foods. Physical activity on a daily basis is very important. These points are all known. Young people nowadays do not participate in enough physical activity. Certainly, families that queue up for burgers and such rubbishy food — and I have been guilty of this many times — are preparing their children for atherosclerosis in their coronary arteries in later years. They are also setting up the conditions for cancer.
At least two out of three cancer-related deaths are preventable. I said at the beginning that action is needed now. I know the Minister wants to do everything she can, but I do implore her to take that action and to make sure that the necessary resources are ring-fenced.

Sir John Gorman: Given the number of Members who wish to speak, we can afford 10 minutes for each, 15minutes for the Member winding-up and for the Minister. That will keep us within the two hours allocated for this debate.

Mr Sam Foster: I am also a member of the all-party group on cancer care, and I am keen to contribute to the debate as cancer care is an issue of the utmost importance to us all. Responsibility for cancer care falls to the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. As future funding for health has yet to be decided by the Executive, I wish to make it clear that I am speaking from the Back Benches as a Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone and not as a Minister or a Member of the Executive Committee.
In spite of the research and technical advances, which have been made in almost every other area of medicine, the stark fact remains that cancer affects one third of the local population and results in the death of almost one person in four. The death rate from cancer in NorthernIreland has almost tripled since the state was founded in 1921 and has even doubled since the introduction of the National Health Service. In the past 30years we could have argued that we were at war with terrorism. It is now time to declare a new war on cancer, which will soon be the biggest killer in Northern Ireland.
In Northern Ireland more people are killed by cancer in one year than have died during the past 30years of the troubles. Each year three thousand seven hundred people die due to cancer. If you break this figure down it is the equivalent of 308people dying each month, 71 each week and 10 each day. That is frightening — in fact, it is terrifying.
As many of you know, I was my party’s former spokesman on health, and I was also a member of the Health Committee in the Northern Ireland Forum. During that period, I was directly involved with Prof Roy Spence, Prof Paddy Johnston and Dr Joe Hendron in securing a tripartite agreement with the National Cancer Institute in the USA and with health representatives in the Republic of Ireland to initiate greater awareness of cancer and to promote excellence in cancer care in NorthernIreland.
My involvement increased my admiration for the tremendous work of ProfSpence, ProfJohnston, Mr Michael Wood and his colleagues in the Ulster Cancer Foundation. I am well aware of the competing claims from various sectors for public funding but I believe that the case made by the Ulster Cancer Foundation report is very well founded.
Everyone accepts that there is presently no cure for every case of cancer, but there is a great deal of evidence which shows that survival rates could be much improved if we funded and provided services and facilities flexible enough to meet the ever increasing demands. Service provision will be expensive, and the implementation of the report would require that we almost double the current spend on cancer services from £14million to £24million per year. However, the implementation of the report would, if we go by evidence from America and some European countries, result in a 20% to 30% improvement in survival rates. From a political, social, medical and moral perspective that would indeed be money well spent.
Questions will be asked about where the money might come from. The Chancellor, GordonBrown, received over £22billion from mobile phone licences. If that money were directed into cancer care in the United Kingdom there would be no great problem.
The Ulster Cancer Foundation is not calling for money to fund cancer services from other parts of the health budget to facilitate this but is, in fact, calling for an increase in the block grant from Westminster. As things stand, and in the continuing absence of further funding, it is calculated that in a decade cancer could be the number one killer in NorthernIreland, responsible for almost 30deaths in every hundred.
As an Assembly, we cannot, we should not, and we must not accept a situation where a set of diseases, known under the common name of cancer, continue to either kill or seriously impair an increasing number of our population. The motto of the Ulster Cancer Foundation is "from care to cure". The Assembly cannot provide the cure for cancer but we do have the responsibility for ensuring that cancer services are given the highest possible priority in the allocation of funds to provide the necessary care. I am pleased to support the motion.

Mr Roger Hutchinson: I welcome the debate on this timely and very important issue. I support the motion and thank the Members for bringing it to the House. Unique is the man or woman who can stand here today and say that he or she has not been affected by cancer in some way whether through personal experience or the loss of a loved one. We have heard how one in three people can expect to experience cancer at some time during their lifetime. Given such alarming statistics, 36 of the 108Members in the Chamber can expect to have first-hand experience of this illness at some time during their lifetime.
One in four of the population will die from this disease. This is the reality that we must seek to confront. In my constituency of East Antrim, as in others, the death toll is rising on an annual basis. Between 1993 and 1995, 1,827 new cases were reported in the Northern Board area; 816deaths were confirmed, and concern is growing. By 2007, cancer will have overtaken heart disease as the number-one cause of fatality in Northern Ireland. I am glad that much progress has been made in recent years to break down the wall of silence that previously surrounded cancer and cancer deaths.
MacMillan Cancer Relief, with its open-space campaign, pointed the way towards identifying a need to talk, and thankfully we are doing that here today. The Ulster Cancer Foundation’s ‘Invest Now’ campaign has much to recommend it. However, while promoting itself as a comprehensive document is not a solution to providing a better oncology service in Northern Ireland, it is a tentative first step in the right direction. The document is a broad overview of the optimum funding that must be secured to ensure an equity of access to high quality care for all.
The document raises many questions which must be answered. How much of the money will go towards primary care? How much has been earmarked for palliative care? How many posts is it anticipated that this additional money will fund? What is the intended timescale for phasing in these appointments? The need exists not only to treat the number of new cases arising in the population more quickly, but also the number of prevalent cases — that is the number diagnosed in previous years who are still alive. What percentage of the funding will be used to allow these patients to have treatment near their homes? Each year more people are surviving due to new treatments, but many may need help in coping with the psychological and physical aspects of life after being diagnosed as having cancer.
In our race to find the ultimate cure, we must not forget those who have fought this battle and won. One key concern people have is waiting time. I want to see this money invested in the re-design of services to meet the needs of patients, to reduce waiting times for referral, investigation and treatment and to tackle head-on the shortage that presently exists in the number of specialist medical and skilled nursing staff in Northern Ireland.
The Calman Hine Report of 1995 agrees with the Ulster Cancer Foundation’s recommendation for a cancer centre plus four cancer units based on the view that specialisation will improve outcomes. However, we must ensure that all four units receive an adequate share of the funding and that training initiatives are put in place to provide the necessary skills for doctors, nurses and other professionals allied to medicine. Northern Ireland is well below its European counterparts in standards of care and rates of survival, all too often ranking alongside eastern block countries. By supporting this motion today we can as least begin to redress the balance.
I support the motion.

Mr Danny O'Connor: I too support the motion. The statistics are that in NorthernIreland, one in three people will get cancer; one in four will die from it; and that 3,700 deaths per annum are cancer related.
We in Northern Ireland are disadvantaged. Our survival rate is between 20% and 30% lower than countries such as France, Holland and Switzerland. We are supposed to be part of the developed world, yet we still rank alongside Latvia and Poland when it comes to cancer treatment. We are not as advanced as we like to think.
The Campbell report, which Dr Hendron mentioned, proposes a regional cancer centre and four cancer units. Today we are thinking about a regional cancer centre based at the Belfast City Hospital. Although I support the motion, I question the necessity to have everything in Belfast. Only 20% of the population live there. I am concerned about putting a regional cancer centre in the City Hospital to the detriment of the rest of Northern Ireland. Cross-border co-operation is increasing. Perhaps there is potential for an all-Ireland centre of excellence, possibly in Armagh. We could charge the Southern Government for treating their cancer patients. That would help subsidise cancer services in our own area.
Cancer-related expenditure is £13·9million when we really need £24million. Three years from now we will need £31million to adequately resource cancer treatment. The projected spend for the next three years does not come near to meeting those requirements. Throughout Britain, less than 1% of the drugs budget is spent on cancer drugs. Taxanes have had considerable success in stopping cancers. In particular, combinations such as Taxol plus platinum are very effective in arresting ovarian cancer. The cost is £1,500 per treatment, and normally eight treatments are required, so it costs £12,000 to treat one patient.
We only have 10·5 cancer surgeons. We really need 25. Are we going to continue to sell the people of this country short? We were elected to deliver. As Mr R Hutchinson and Mrs Bell said, everyone has a relative or friend who has suffered or died from cancer. We need to deliver. People’s lives have to be worth something. If we continue to underfund this service, people will not get the treatment they need. Every year 3,700 people die from cancer in this country. That is more than the number of lives lost in the whole 30 years of the troubles.
The Minister of Environment — I know he was speaking in a personal capacity as the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone — said that there is a lot of co-operation. The point I want to get across is that Dr Hendron and Mr Foster’s tripartite agreement to improve the situation in Northern Ireland is all well and good but if the money is not there to deliver the services, that is where it hits home. Those 3,700 people are being sold short. The Minister said that not all cancers are curable, and we accept that, but much can be done to relieve suffering and many people can be cured.
My Colleague, DrHendron, mentioned problems resulting from smoking, alcohol and diet. I am not very qualified to speak on that matter because I am a smoker. However, socially disadvantaged areas tend to have a greater proportion of people who smoke, drink and have poor diets. When we talk about targeting social need, we need to consider those people at the end of the social scale who have poor diets and who do smoke and drink more heavily than people on higher incomes.
The Minister has just left, but there are also a number of environmental concerns which need to be considered. Several questions were raised concerning emissions from Sellafield. We have heard about emissions such as sulphur dioxide from power stations. All these emissions are carcinogenic. These problems need to be investigated; our people cannot continue to be pushed aside.
We were elected here to deliver and if we cannot deliver an extra £10million this year — which is a tiny proportion of our whole expenditure for Northern Ireland — then there is something drastically wrong with us. I think there will be very few dissenters here on the question of making the extra money available. The Minister will have plenty of support in the House if she takes this forward to the Executive, which I hope she does. Finally, 41% of men and 36% of women will get some form of invasive cancer. It could be me, it could be any one of us. The decisions that we take now are going to impact upon what may, or may not, happen to ourselves. I urge people to support this motion.

Ms Jane Morrice: As a Member of the Assembly cross-party group on cancer care, I support the motion. Like my Colleagues, I urge the Minister to act on this issue as a matter of urgency. I want to congratulate the Ulster Cancer Foundation for persisting with its message. The increased awareness of the issues involved is very valuable and is an important part of learning how to tackle the problems. The foundation’s document ‘Cancer Services: Invest Now’ is an agenda for action which none of us, and I repeat, none of us, can afford to ignore.
The statistics have been mentioned over and over again in this Chamber. Whether it is one in three, or one in four, the fact is that each of us will be touched by this terrible disease at some time. More than 8,000 people in Northern Ireland and their families are affected by cancer every year — there are more than 8,000 deaths in a year. What I like to do often is to compare our situation with that of our European neighbours and the rest of the world.
If we consider the survival rates then all we can do is bow our heads in shame. The survival rate in the United Kingdom is 20% to 30% worse than that in Switzerland, or Holland, or the United States. We have just 10consultant oncologists, whereas other European countries would have 30oncologists caring for that size of population. What are the problems, and how do we go about resolving them? Obviously, as we have seen from the figures, there is a lack of funding and resources, a lack of medical oncologists, a lack of multi-disciplined teams, an inability to access — and quickly access — new drugs, and a lack of structure for clinical funds.
Current spending on cancer services is £13·9million but the services require some £24million, perhaps even £30million. An extra £10million at least is definitely needed.
I want to conclude on a note of optimism. Yesterday, President Clinton and Prime Minister Blair announced a medical breakthrough which, believe it or not, has been ranked alongside landing on the moon and the creation of the wheel in terms of the impact it will have on society. What happened yesterday was tremendous and I am slightly surprised that it has been bypassed in a blink of an eye. As a result of the discovery it is said that our lifespan will increase by 25years as of yesterday. There might well be an element of hype in its presentation, but I think that we have turned the key and opened the book of life. Through this discovery I hope that scientists will be able to find cures for the major diseases facing society today. I hope that a cure for cancer will be top of the priority list.

Mrs Joan Carson: Some words strike terror in people’s hearts and none more so than the word cancer. It is one of the most dreaded words in our language and is on a par with what tuberculosis was in the 1930s, ‘40s and ‘50s. Cancer engenders a fear of the unknown, a fear of the treatment involved, a fear of surgery, of chemotherapy, of radiotherapy — and perhaps of the possibility that there might be no cure. Tuberculosis was eliminated by penicillin and people hope for a similar cure for cancer. Cancer is the second largest cause of death in Northern Ireland, cardiac problems being the first. It accounts for 26% of all deaths. Statistics show that this disease is on the increase. It shows no sign of decreasing, mostly due to the ageing population and our lifestyles. Northern Ireland is an example in Europe of poor health and under-resourced services. I wonder if the underresourcing is a consequence of direct rule and the lack of funding for research a result of no direction from locally elected people. It might be the case.
Assembly Members must take responsibility to ensure that adequate funds are found to deliver the necessary service. At the moment, there are only 10 oncologists in Northern Ireland and we are told that we require 30 to provide effective treatment. To have more oncologists we need more money. At the moment there are only 10 oncologists in Northern Ireland, but we are told that 30 are required to ensure effective treatment of the community.
Expenditure is currently £13 million, but we should be spending £24 million. Every area of the Health Service is competing for funding, but it is clear from what we have heard that more money is needed for cancer services. In Northern Ireland we are privileged to have a centre of excellence for cancer research in Belfast City Hospital. The excellent pioneering research of its staff must be commended. If, however, they are to continue the work of finding a cure for this dreaded disease, they will require additional funding. I am encouraged by yesterday’s news, which Ms Morrice mentioned, that the Genome Project has successfully mapped the human genetic code. It is to be hoped that this will provide an important step forward in the search for an eventual cure for cancer.
Any advance in medicine has a financial cost, and it is clear that the projected figures for the financing of Northern Ireland’s cancer services fall short of what is necessary. As our population lives longer it is clear that our lifestyles must change. Public education is required on an ongoing and urgent basis, especially with regard to smoking, sunbathing and our national food habits. A change of habit may help reduce the incidence of cancer, but this is not enough. A concerted effort must be made by the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety and by all agencies to eradicate this disease. This requires extra financial input for all cancer services — education, research, staffing, training, and modern facilities. We must see that this is available. I support the motion.

Mr Norman Boyd: Regrettably, due to poor diet and under resourcing of services, Northern Ireland has the worst cancer survival rates in Western Europe. One in three people will develop cancer in their lifetime, and one in four people will die from it. Sadly, both old and young have lost their lives through cancer. It can strike anyone at anytime. The worst survival rates are for Ulster men — just over half with the most serious cancers are still alive after one year, and 80% of our lung cancer patients die after a year. These are the worst figures in Europe.
In a recent report the Chief Medical Officer, Dr Henrietta Campbell, said that most cancers were preventable because lifestyle factors played an important part in their development. Tobacco-smoking and an unhealthy diet are responsible for two thirds of all cancer deaths. In Northern Ireland smoking claims 3,000 lives every year and causes illness, suffering and hardship to thousands more families. It is the single greatest preventable cause of ill health in Northern Ireland. Ulster people spend a staggering 55% more on cigarettes than the average for the UnitedKingdom as a whole. A 1998 survey revealed that households in Northern Ireland spend £8.50 a week on smoking, a massive £3 more than the UK average. Sadly, more children and young people are starting to smoke every year; recent research for Northern Ireland shows that 18% of teenage boys and 34% of teenage girls now smoke.
There is a responsibility, particularly for elected representatives, to reduce smoking and save lives. Smokers also have responsibilities to people who do not smoke. There are a small number of people who smoke in the corridors of this very Building which has a non-smoking policy. More funding must be made available to help educate the public, particularly young people, about the dangers of smoking. Such measures include controls on tobacco advertising, tough enforcement on under-age sales and changing attitudes to smoking through a major campaign. Attitudes and behaviour need to change to encourage a healthier lifestyle. In addition, increased funding is clearly required as a matter of urgency to combat cancer as a whole.
Four key steps need to be taken in order to tackle the disease. We need to put in place the best preventative measures; we need to provide the best treatments available; we need to ensure that people with cancer are given the highest standard of care and attention at all stages of their illness; and we need to invest in high quality research and development.
In NorthernIreland approximately 8,700people develop cancer each year, and around 3,700deaths from cancer occur each year. Cancer currently accounts for approximately 26% of all deaths in NorthernIreland, and this trend is increasing. It is projected that in the next five to seven years cancer will be the biggest killer in our society. By 2007 it is likely that cancer will overtake heart disease as NorthernIreland’s number one killer. This is as a result of our ageing society as well as improving outcomes for people with cardio-vascular disease. Therefore cancer and its treatment will become a major burden on society for the foreseeable future.
We need an extra 140specialist nursing staff plus a range of new screening and education programmes. We already have some of the best clinicians, surgeons and oncologists, but they need resources and finances to carry out the necessary treatment. ProfPatrickJohnston, Head of Oncology at Belfast City Hospital, has stated that we need to increase the number of oncologists from 10 to 30. The current spending for cancer services in NorthernIreland is approximately £13·9million per annum. However, in order to provide the type of service that is required, funding of approximately £24million per year is needed. That is almost double the amount currently allocated.
In Great Britain just 95p per person is spent on anti-cancer drugs. In Germany it is £6·24. The critical issue of funding for cancer services highlights graphically the current folly of public funds being used foolishly by the Department. I refer to the United Kingdom taxpayers’ money being wasted by the Sinn Féin Health Minister. Much needed health funding is being spent unnecessarily on the Irish language. It must also be highlighted publicly that the amount of resources which are being used up due to paramilitary beatings and shootings could otherwise be directed to cancer and other much needed services if these illegal activities did not occur. We heard pleas for public funding in the debate on transport, which is a very worthy case. However, there is no greater case for increased public funding than that of cancer treatment.
I want to publicly thank the various cancer charities for their tremendous fundraising work and for the help that they provide to those who suffer from the effects of cancer or whose families are affected. Society owes them a great debt and we, as elected representatives, must continue to support them in every way possible.

Mr Jim Shannon: I support the motion. It says that the Assembly welcomes the Ulster Cancer Foundation’s document ‘Cancer Services — Invest Now’ and urges the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to implement, as a matter of urgency, the recommendations contained in the report. That is a recommendation that we can all support. Indeed, Members have unanimously supported the motion and the call for a substantial and significant financial contribution to cancer services in the Province.
Cancer will touch most of us, if not all of us, at some time in our lives. Some Members mentioned that their families have been affected by it. Indeed, my family has been touched by it too. If we do not develop some form of cancer it is highly likely that a loved one or a close relative will. Some of us have watched family or friends suffer and perhaps even die from this illness. Consequently most of us are only too well aware of the traumatising nature of this disease.
The Ulster Cancer Foundation’s report ‘Cancer Services — Invest Now’ is welcomed by everyone in the House. It is sad that there is an ever growing need for such services. Sadder still is the fact that the Ulster Cancer Foundation had to produce this document calling for adequate funding. It felt it had to because it is impossible to provide an efficient and effective service with the present inadequate funding.
The fact that the Ulster Cancer Foundation felt constrained to produce this report is an indication of its concerns. Cancer is a disease which crosses the boundaries of class, colour, race or creed. Young and old can all be affected by it. The document outlines the very frightening statistic that there are 8,700new patients every year and that 41% of males and 36% of females will develop some form of cancer at some stage in their lives.
There are about 20people in this Chamber at present, and if one in four were to die from cancer, then there would be five people who would not be in this Chamber in one year’s time. These are startling statistics, but they bring home how cancer will affect us. As other Members have pointed out, there could be 35 to 40 Assembly Members who could pass away from cancer, but that does not mean that they will. Rawls’ theory of justice states that the only fair way to make a decision or choice is to do so in the "original position" where we know nothing about our status or abilities. The layman’s interpretation is that those who participate in this debate may not necessarily get cancer, but there are those in this Chamber who will.
We should put ourselves in the position of the people who will, or could, be cancer sufferers, and, if we do that, then we will hit upon what this debate is all about. It is essential that we do so and then ask ourselves how we would like to be treated. What drugs would we like to be made available? What standard of care and research would we expect or want to have been done? If we were to place ourselves in this position, I believe that we would all reach a similar conclusion — that we would want the maximum standard of care, the maximum standard of drugs, the maximum standard of research and the full implementation of Henrietta Campbell’s report entitled ‘Cancer Services — Investing for the Future’.
The motion is explicit and refers to a matter of urgency. I hope that all Members have either read, or have some knowledge of, the document and will be well aware of its recommendations. The Ulster Cancer Foundation calls for the full implementation of the ‘Cancer Services — Investing for the Future’ report, which is concerned with the reorganisation and improvement of services. There is no doubt that the Minister, the Department, and all of the elected representatives support the ethos of the report, but we need more than words, we need urgent action, and we need money — the words that were used earlier during the transport debate.
The document states that the current spend for cancer services in Northern Ireland is approximately £13·9million. This is grossly inadequate to provide the type of service required. The foundation suggests that in order to have an effective and adequate service, at least £24million a year is needed, but the Government’s allocated funding falls well short of that.
The foundation also highlights the fact that as treatments become more complex, the required spend will most likely need to be significantly increased. In just a few years, it is likely that cancer will become the major killer in Northern Ireland — overtaking heart disease.
The concluding statement of this document is particularly significant, and I reiterate it and firmly support it. Its ethos is that it is entirely unacceptable that we, as a society, must accept such grossly inadequate resources to combat cancer.
The United Kingdom has long prided itself on its western civilised status, and yet statistics reveal that the survival rate in Northern Ireland over the past five years was approximately 20% to 30% worse than that of Holland or France. Cancer survival rates for the UK have been consistently low and are comparable to countries in the previous eastern European block. When we consider those figures, it gives us an idea of how bad the incidences of cancer are in Northern Ireland.
Unfortunately, statistics tell us that the problem will only get worse. Now is the time for action to reform and improve cancer services in Northern Ireland. Inadequate funding will be the direct cause of death of the many patients who, with improved facilities — doctors, drugs and research — may have survived their illness.
At this juncture I will highlight the wider issues involved when Ministers take decisions about life and death, and it is important to bear in mind the human rights and European context. The impending implementation of the Human Rights Bill and its effect will mean that we must consider the convention rights when passing any Bill or making any decision. Possible litigation could arise out of a Minister’s decision if it were allowed, or if adequate funds were not provided, that would be a violation of Article2 of the Convention — the right to life.
In a recent case the European Court of Human Rights held that Governments have a positive duty to protect life and a duty not to make decisions that will cost the lives of those that they have a duty to protect.
There is no direct analogy to illustrate the problem of inadequate funding, but many human rights experts feel that it is only a matter of time, and considering the state our health service is going through, the scale of potential litigation would be wide and far reaching. That aspect should be considered carefully when any decision is made.
In conclusion, I call for all Members to support the motion and I would urge the need for increased funding. I would remind Members that this issue potentially affects approximately 40% of our constituents. Consequently, we have a duty to use our position to urge the Department to make the only realistic option available and implement, as a matter of urgency, the recommendations contained in the report.

Mr Kieran McCarthy: I support the motion brought forward by my Colleague, MrsBell. I pay tribute to all the organisations in Northern Ireland that have been working tirelessly for many years to combat this most terrible of diseases.
It is extremely sad to remark that with so much time, effort and money being utilised in research, treatment and provision, Northern Ireland still has an unacceptably high incidence of cancer.
I have said, on many occasions that the incidence of cancer in people living on the east coast has been higher than the national average. Some people might attribute this to the radioactive material that has been, and still is, discharged into the Irish Sea by the British Nuclear Fuels Ltd at Sellafield. If those discharges are causing, or partly causing, the unnaturally high level of cancer in this region, that dangerous operation should cease immediately. The concerns of my constituents in Strangford must be addressed now, as this problem has been ignored by the authorities for far too long. People have a right to know what is causing the appalling increase in the number of cancer incidents in Northern Ireland.
A recent report shows that Northern Ireland has the worse cancer survival rates in western Europe. That is totally unacceptable, but genuine efforts are being made to redress the situation. The Chief Medical Officer has stated — and this has been said already — that most cancers are preventable. Tobacco smoking and an unhealthy diet are responsible for two thirds of all cancer deaths. Surely, with regard to those two particular areas, much more should be done through education and by cutting back consumption of tobacco products. Efforts have been made, and are continuing to be made, to reduce the level of tobacco advertising, but we must go much further. Tobacco is a deadly drug. How does the Government deal with other deadly drugs? The answer may lie there.
The Minister, in her recent reply to my request to fully implement the Ulster Cancer Foundation document, stated her Department’s commitment to the Campbell Report. She also informed me of the provision of a further £8million for the improvement of cancer research and treatment services in addition to an extra £7million provided last year. The money is most welcome, but more is needed. The Minister also said that she wished to see more specialist staff, oncologists and nurses being introduced into this branch of the health service. I reiterate the urgent need for the authorities to face this disturbing problem, but at the same time recognise the strain currently placed on the Health Service. The people of Northern Ireland must receive the best cancer services possible and we in the Assembly must not fail to provide them. I appeal to the Minister to adopt the Ulster Cancer Foundation document. I support the motion.

Mr John Kelly: A LeasCheann Comhairle, I support the motion. I should like to say at the outset that I congratulate and thank EileenBell and PaulBerry for bringing this motion before the House. We must also congratulate MichaelWood, who is in the Gallery, for the tremendous work he and his colleagues have done in promoting the Ulster Cancer Foundation, and of course, ProfRoySpence and ProfPatrickJohnston.
A LeasCheann Comhairle, I have been in a cancer hospital both as patient and visitor, and it would be remiss not to pay tribute to those in the medical profession — nurses and doctors — who service that most sensitive area of hospitalisation. At this juncture we should also pay tribute to the hospices for their tremendous work in caring for people in the last weeks, days or hours of their lives.
I was not here yesterday, a LeasCheann Comhairle I was at a funeral. A young woman of 55 died on Saturday after battling cancer for a year. It occurred to me that, within the last 18months, I have been at 11such funerals of young women within a 20-mile radius who have been afflicted by the dreadful disease, cancer, and who have died from their affliction.
One cannot help but notice the sorrow and hardship that the loss of a mother brings to her young family and husband, and the community in general. Echoing what other Members have said, there is no doubt in my mind that cancer is a growing killer in society. Cancer literally eats away at lives throughout the community. It eats away at those upon whom the community depends so much — young mothers who, perhaps having reared their children to school-going or university age, are taken away from them by this disease.
JaneMorrice has mentioned the genetic breakthrough we read about this morning, which was compared to man’s landing on the moon for the first time. Yet already controversy is arising from the billions spent on coming to what we hope will be an extremely worthwhile genetic breakthrough. Indeed, other medical people question the wisdom of this expenditure when we do not yet have a solution to simple problems like the pollution of water.
However, we cannot be begrudgers, and we must welcome this breakthrough and hope that it will not be misdirected for commercial reasons or at disadvantaged people perhaps found to be genetically imperfect. I felt we might put down a marker on that. As I said, we support the Ulster Cancer Foundation report, and we are convinced by the argument that cancer is the greatest killer in society.
We have a number of concerns about the approach taken in the document. Our first relates to the somewhat narrow focus on the requirements for the curative service, and while we do not wish to downplay the importance of these services, we should all remember that most cancers are preventable diseases, resulting from the material, environmental and lifestyle factors already referred to. We do not believe it is enough simply to note the rising number of cancer cases and then to ask for adequate curative services in response. A more long-term but effective approach would be to concentrate on the question of why the rates are rising, and what society can do to halt, then reverse this trend.
Resources will need to be divided evenly between curative and preventative services. Moreover, we do not believe that responsibility for tackling cancer and other health issues should be confined to the Health Service. All Government agencies should be required to take responsibility for the health impact of their policies, and that goes back to the argument on the environment.
We also note that the report, whilst it takes note of Campbell’s recommendation to develop multi-disciplinary teams, emphasises the number of consultants, oncologists and surgeons required. So, we are saying to the Minister, and to you, a LeasCheann Comhairle, that the response to the cancer service is to "invest now."
The Assembly lacks fiscal autonomy, and we depend on the block grant allocated by the British State to the Assembly and subsequently to the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. We believe that it is only by instituting democratically controlled tax-raising powers that services such as this will be provided with the financial resources required. Nevertheless, we hope that this report will provide further pressure for the provisions of adequate funds to invest in services essential to our community’s well-being.
A LeasCheann Comhairle, I hope my comments will be taken in the spirit in which they are meant, and that is with the desire to do everything possible to rid society of the scourge of cancer. We applaud the Ulster Cancer Foundation again for putting its case so clearly and we earnestly hope that this document will have the desired effect of leading to improved cancer services in the area. Thank you a LeasCheann Comhairle.

Rev William McCrea: I believe that this subject deserves the support of every Member of the Assembly. I appreciate that the Chamber is not full because of the staggered lunch arrangements, meetings, and Members attending different functions. However, I genuinely believe that there is unanimous support for action to be taken as suggested by the Ulster Cancer Foundation.
I would like to express my appreciation to Michael Wood, Director General of Ulster Cancer Foundation and the other members of that organisation for their presentation and the copy of the report given to each Member. I trust that Michael knows that his excellent service has been deeply appreciated and will be appreciated in the coming years.
I would also like to thank Mrs Bell and Mr Berry for bringing forward the motion because it is important that we discuss a matter that is causing great concern. Many people fear even the mention of the word, and when they feel ill and go to the doctor, one of their fears, if they cannot attribute the pain or the sickness to any other disease or sickness, is that the doctor will say it is cancer.
Many people fear the mention of the name, and many fear even to talk about the disease because they want to close their eyes, somehow, to the reality of their sickness, or to the pain that it will cause to their family circles. However, I believe that whenever the doctor does diagnose cancer that does not necessarily mean that the next word is death.
It is right to say that, because of the excellent scientific advances, many cancers can be cured and we would urge people to help doctors in the early diagnosis of the disease. This is one very important point: we should urge people to get tests done rather than carry a cross on their shoulders about what it might be. They should get treatment as quickly as possible.
There are alarming statistics in the report, but statistics do not do justice to the individual stories of pain and suffering behind them, and I say that as someone whose father-in-law and mother-in-law were both diagnosed as having cancer inside a matter of days. My wife and our family circle nursed them as best we could, ensuring that they spent the rest of their days comfortable, and with a meaningful life until it was in the purpose and plan of God to call and take them home.
We are talking here about something that affects every grouping. The age or the sex of a person means nothing. Every group in society, and nearly every family in society, can, at some time, put a hand out and touch someone, among their loved ones, who has suffered from cancer, and sitting here today, not one of us knows exactly what that word might mean to us or what such an experience might mean to our families.
We are talking about something that is very real, not something imaginary. We are facing a great reality. The other reality is that we need resources to fight this disease, to get the necessary research done that will enable scientific and medical progress. Some people do not have access to particular drugs because they are very costly. People have come to me about the drugs they need, or believe would help. Some are told that in their cases, they might not be of great help, or because of uncertainties some are denied them. If cancer comes to our homes or family circles, we will want to ensure that everything humanly possible is done to save the life or lives of our loved ones.
I thank my Colleagues and Friends in the Assembly for moving this motion. I trust that we have highlighted a very human problem today and, indeed, that action will be taken and the financial resources made available to let our people live.

Mr Derek Hussey: I congratulate those who have brought this to the attention of the House. The motion has been well and widely debated. We are talking about ‘Cancer Services — Invest Now’. We can all concur with the remarks made by DrMcCrea that cancer does not necessarily mean death, though too often it does. Through the provision of services we may be able to ensure a higher survival rate, and that is vital. If one life can be saved, a good job will have been done today by this Body.
I do not want to broaden the issue too much, but I do want to move to one small area of prevention. Causes have been mentioned such as smoking and radon gas et cetera. A small reference was made to the large amount of money that was brought in by the sale of mobile telephone licences while there is concern about the possible effects of mobile phones. I request that the Minister, in addition to this motion, take serious note of the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee’s Report of 22September 1999. It was the ‘Scientific Advisory System: Mobile Phones and Health’. If there is a means of prevention, that report should be taken into account in the considerations that the Minister will be making.
I refer to one of its recommendations:
"We recommend that the Government ensures that a higher priority is given to a research programme into the health impacts of mobile phones".
One does not want to scaremonger, but it is highlighted that much research is needed in that area. I do not want such research to detract from the immediate investment in cancer services to prevent deaths, if possible. I support the motion.

Ms Bairbre de Brún: Go raibh maith agat. Fáiltím roimh díospóireacht seo agus gabhaim buíochas leis na Teachtaí a bheartaigh ar an ábhar seo a thógáil. Tá mé sásta a fheiceáil go bhfuil an t-Uasal Michael Wood i láthair agus ba mhaith liom an deis seo a ghlacadh le buíochas a ghabháil leis agus le Fondúireacht Ailse Uladh agus leis na heagrais dheonacha eile a d’obair go crua thar na blianta in aghaidh na hailse.
I welcome today’s debate, and I thank the Members who have raised the issue and brought it before the House. I am also glad to see that MrMichaelWood is present, and I would like to take this opportunity to thank him, the Ulster Cancer Foundation and the many other charitable organisations that have worked throughout the years, with the services, in order to tackle this terrible disease.
I firmly believe that people here are entitled to internationally accepted standards of treatment and care. I welcome the report from the Ulster Cancer Foundation, an organisation which has provided much needed care and support for cancer patients for many years. It also provides resources for research and has funded the cancer registry. I am glad that the Ulster Cancer Foundation’s report strongly supports, and endorses, the recommendation of the Campbell Report on the reorganisation of cancer services. These services have changed out of all recognition over recent years. Indeed, the Cancer Foundation notes, as have Members during the debate, that many aspects of the Campbell Report are being implemented. Cancer units have been developed in our area hospitals where patients with more common cancers are being treated by specialist multi-disciplinary cancer teams.
In addition, Belfast City Hospital and the Royal Victoria Hospital have been developed as a regional cancer centre. In line with the Campbell recommendations, radiotherapy and chemotherapy services, currently provided at Belvoir Park Hospital, will be relocated to the Belfast City Hospital. This will result in a state-of-the-art oncology centre, which will include the latest facilities and equipment. Work on this project is on course to be completed by 2003, and there is no doubt that this will be a world-class facility.
The new oncology centre is being developed as a public and private partnership, and we expect the preferred tender to be announced in the near future. In conjunction with this, a new day hospital for people with cancer will be established in the existing Tower Block, and it is expected that this will be funded by my Department on approval of the final business case.
During the course of the debate much mention has been made of the number of oncologists, and, indeed, there has been progress, and further progress remains to be made.
At the time of the Campbell Report there were only eight oncologists, and it was recommended, at that time, that this figure be increased to at least 13 by 2005. Currently there are 14 oncologists in post, with plans to increase this figure to 22 by 2005. However, there is a world-wide shortage of trained oncologists. These specialists take a number of years to train, and this raises difficulties in attaining the number we would wish. It is not simply a matter of resources.
Furthermore, while it is vital that we have a sufficient number of oncologists, a quality cancer service depends on having a wide range of other staff, including specialist surgeons, physicians, pathologists and nurses. In the debate questions have been asked as to why everything is in Belfast, but what I want to see is a network of care that ensures that people, no matter where they live, have access to good quality care and this network must encompass the cancer centre, cancer units and primary care. I recognise, as does my colleague Sam Foster, the pressure on the public purse and, obviously, any increase in the block fund would be very welcome indeed.
As many Members have indicated, there is no doubt that every one of us in this room felt a personal impact as a result of this terrible disease and the toll that it takes. I am very aware of the toll for cancer sufferers, their families, carers and those throughout the service who work closely with them. I also pay tribute to the courage shown by all of those people who are battling against cancer. We need to do all we can to provide the best possible level of support. We all know someone who has suffered from cancer, or who has died from cancer. I can attest to that as it has been the case in my own experience recently. People do survive this disease and go on to live meaningful lives. Again I can attest to this from my own family. The courage people show in coming through this acts as a beacon to others going through times of difficulty. I also hope that people realise that Irish speakers are not immune to cancer and that people from all parts of our society suffer equally from this disease.
There has been mention of the ‘Eurocare Study’; this was an important study which revealed that there were great variations in outcomes from cancer treatment throughout Europe. What the study actually showed was that outcomes in England and Scotland were not significantly different from the European average. Irish cancer registries were not included in the study, however we have no reason to be complacent. I want to see cancer outcomes in our country being similar to those achieved in Switzerland, Holland and the USA. This will depend not only on having high-quality cancer hospital services but also on having excellent linkage and support for primary and palliative care. I fully support the work of the National Cancer Institute, the establishment of the important linkage between cancer specialists in Ireland and the USA. That is already bringing benefits to patients, as oncologists and specialist nurses on both sides of the Atlantic collaborate in caring for patients with cancer. It has also facilitated the collection of information on cancer incidences and outcomes on an all-Ireland basis through the cancer registries.
I also recognise that the death toll is rising, and this is why we must direct our energies to implementing preventative action as well as ensuring good quality primary, acute and palliative care. The percentage of funding going into the various sectors will, in many cases, depend on local need, and I think that this will be best determined at local level.
I am also fully aware of public concern about radioactive waste, leakage and pollution, and this is an issue that needs to be kept under close scrutiny.
I certainly support the focus on prevention and education, and I would like to see this kind of initiative developed on an all-Ireland basis. Indeed, I think there is a need for a greater focus on prevention, particularly on initiatives to reduce tobacco smoking — another point that Members frequently mentioned during the debate (including those who recognise they need to give up smoking). Last year, my Department provided £0·5 million for smoking cessation programmes, including a major publicity campaign. Programmes for this year are currently being evaluated, and this will inform a strategy and action plan on smoking, which we hope to publish in the autumn.
Cancer treatment waiting times are an issue of great concern. I am determined to reduce the length of time cancer patients have to wait for outpatient appointments. I am pleased to announce that a target of two weeks will be introduced for breast cancer patients from 1August. I intend to extend this target to other cancers within 18-24 months. Tackling our waiting list problem is a priority issue. There can be no overnight solutions. Long-term strategies are required. The same applies to in-patient waiting times. I intend to bring forward in the near future a regional waiting list action plan, which will put in place the necessary strategies to reduce unacceptably long waits for all treatments, including cancer treatment.
I note the important point that early diagnosis is essential. To ensure that, public and professional education is vital. The new breast cancer waiting time target, which I have just announced, will be accompanied by guidance on early diagnosis of this disease. Further guidance will follow in the next 18-24 months.
We all welcome the success of the human genome project. I have no doubt that, within our lifetime, this will result in the development of completely new ways of preventing and treating cancer.
To come back to the question of funding, we need to ensure that allocations are such that the general health of our population is improved and, specifically, that we have funding to tackle this particularly terrible disease. I support the Ulster Cancer Foundation’s wish for an adequately resourced cancer service, as do we all. Many of the required changes will take time to implement, because of the need to have adequately-trained and skilled staff in place. This year, an additional £8million has been provided for cancer services, on top of the additional £7million last year. That shows the priority that we attach to this vital question. I am confident that the new funding will make a substantial contribution to the continuing development of our cancer services. I want to ensure that, in the years ahead, cancer services have and retain a high priority within my Department.

Sir John Gorman: Everyone will be very pleased — although, as I am in the Chair, perhaps this should be regarded as being off the record — to hear your announcement of a two-week target for breast cancer, and also the considerable increase in the number of oncology specialists, which should be a tremendous improvement.

Mr Paul Berry: I thank Members for their kind words about Eileen Bell and myself. While we accept those kind words, I feel strongly that it was our duty to bring forward this motion and back the Ulster Cancer Foundation document. At the outset, I commend the tremendous work carried out by Mr Michael Wood and his staff at the foundation. There is no doubt that they have carried out tremendous work, over a number of years, in an effort to defeat this serious disease.
Few issues in modern society are as emotive as cancer. The very word provokes fear and worry on a considerable scale. Such statistics, if they are to be believed, do not present a very encouraging picture. It is clear from what has been said that Members have studied the Ulster Cancer Foundation’s report, and I want to make some further points with regard to that.
We all have a one in three chance of getting cancer. One in four will die from cancer. About one in nine are diagnosed with cancer before the age of 45. Men are more likely to die from cancer than women, and men are more likely than women to develop invasive cancer. JimShannon, RevWilliamMcCrea and DerekHussey have all made it very clear that cancer does not just affect the elderly. It happens to young people, to the middle aged and to many other people. When I went on a tour of Belfast City Hospital this really hit me. There is a perception in Northern Ireland that it is mainly women who get cancer. From the evidence in this book, it is quite clear that cancer affects, not only women, but men and young people. When I visited Belfast City Hospital I looked at one ward in the cancer unit, and I saw in front of me only young fellows, around my own age, who were all being treated for that terrible illness.
It is extremely important that cancer is diagnosed early. This point has been raised several times. While recognising that there are many problems with data — in terms of determining if there is a real increase or simply better quality data — the figures present adequate evidence of a major health problem in this country. Perhaps what is most alarming is that the survival rate in Northern Ireland is not only very low in comparison to other countries, but also in comparison to the United Kingdom as a whole. While recognising that there are heavy demands on the taxpayer’s money across all levels of the Health Service and that we will never eliminate this terrible disease, or deaths from it, we should not be deterred from making a case for proper investment in this particular area.
Now is the time for us, as elected representatives, to lay down some markers as to where money should be directed in this country. We should not be deterred when we are confronted with the reality that efforts to prevent and cure cancer have been intensified as well as increased. There is a very real success story and many people, who in the past would have died sooner, are now able to live longer. Others whose quality of life would have been very much poorer now have an enhanced quality of life, thankfully. Research into both diagnosis and the forms of treatment has greatly improved. Today we aim to demonstrate to the Assembly that it is essential that the ‘Cancer Services – Invest Now’ is not merely heeded but, more importantly, becomes part of the planning within the Health Service and that it is catered for within the allocation of resources.
However, having laid down the foundation, there has been very little progress towards getting the structure in place. That failure has been due to the lack of resources. Some may be tempted to think that this report does not matter too much since cancer treatment is ongoing. Others may be tempted to think that this is simply another reminder of the importance of the Health Service to all of us. This is not the case. The reality is illustrated in the following ways. First, cancer patients are being denied access to the very drugs required for their treatment. This is the equivalent of having a car without wheels. Secondly, there is a shortage of specialists to treat cancer patients.
That shortage is directly attributed to the lack of funds to employ specialists’ time. An injection of resources would increase the number of cancer specialists. That is necessary to meet current demand. Cancer patients are being denied access to high quality treatment when they need it because there are not enough specialists to deal with them. Thirdly, there is a very real need to ensure that the Campbell report is fully implemented. Until that is done, we will continue to have a less than adequate health quality cancer service. I have listened very closely to Members today. I listened closely to my Colleague MrRogerHutchinson as he enquired about where the money would be allocated. Only the Ulster Cancer Foundation can lay that out, as it has specific areas to allocate to. I have no doubt that the points that the Member raised will be taken on board by the Ulster Cancer Foundation when it goes to lobby the Health Department. The Member made very good points about primary care, palliative care, the shortage of specialist medical and nursing staff, and the need to reduce waiting times for patients. These, and many other issues, need to be addressed in the field of cancer services.
All Members taking part raised very important points. Can we expect the taxpayer to keep on picking up the tab for providing medical services for those who show no interest in their own lives and who do not look after themselves? Members have mentioned the problems of smoking and alcohol abuse, and how people should try to help themselves more. They are very valid points and are very controversial matters in themselves. However, there is a need to remind people that certain activities can increase the likelihood of developing cancer. It is important that the message "Look after your health before you have to be looked after" continues to go out.
There are many areas where the people of Northern Ireland can help themselves, but we must also commend the work of other cancer organisations across Northern Ireland and, indeed, the UK. We welcome this report, and it has been an honour to bring it forward today with EileenBell, but I must also pay tribute to Macmillan Cancer Relief. It has also contributed to the cancer services and in the effort to defeat this terrible disease over the years. It must be brought to Members’ attention that Macmillan Cancer Relief has invested £5 million across the four board areas in recent years. That includes specialist cancer and palliative care nurses. That is a great grant scheme available to cancer patients, which must also be supported. Members, and the Department of Health, must look carefully at, and listen clearly to, what has been said today. Waiting times must be dealt with, and proper information must be supplied to support cancer patients. Support, with the opportunity to talk to cancer patients, is another important issue.
I have no doubt that every Member in the Chamber has had loved ones and relatives who have died because of this terrible disease. There are also Members who have had family members who, thankfully, have been successfully treated because of early diagnosis. We do not want to be scaremongers, but I believe that supporting this motion welcoming the Ulster Cancer Foundation’s document ‘Cancer Services — Invest Now’ will go a long way in defeating this terrible disease. £13.9million is currently spent on cancer services. There is a need for £24million to bring services up to proper standards, and I believe that the Health Department must find that money urgently. Then, there will be light at the end of the tunnel for the people of NorthernIreland who are suffering because of the terrible disease of cancer, and also for their families.
It has been an honour to bring this motion forward, and I ask the Assembly for its support.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That this Assembly welcomes the Ulster Cancer Foundation’s document ‘Cancer Services — Invest Now’ and urges the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to implement, as a matter of urgency, the recommendations contained in the report.

Sir John Gorman: I was delighted to hear my friend MichaelWood being commended by so many people, including the Minister. I have known him for many years. He was a distinguished and active member of the Institute of Directors when I was director of that body, and I have no doubt that his advice and example have kept many people alive.
The sitting was suspended at 2.47pm.
On resuming —

Assembly: Private-notice Questions

Sir John Gorman: I have received notice of a private notice question to the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment under Standing Order 20. Before I call the Minister I would like to explain how private notice questions, PNQs, are to be handled, since it is the first time that this matter has been dealt with in the House.
A PNQ must be tabled in the Business Office before 10.30am on a Monday in the week during which an answer is sought. In accepting the question, the Business Office will consider three important issues: the urgency of the subject in question; the scale of importance to the public in having an answer; and whether sufficient notice has been given to the Minister to enable him or her to respond.
The question will be taken immediately before the start of the adjournment debate on Tuesday of that week. At that time I will call on the Minister to provide an answer. At the end of the answer I will call the questioner to pose any supplementary, and other Members may also indicate their intention to pose supplementary questions. However, given the limited notice of these questions I will be paying close attention to the relevance of any supplementary to the subject matter of the initial question. I will stick very firmly to that. There will be no excursions into matters that do not relate to this question. I will rule out of order any question without a direct and clear relationship to the original question.
In total I would expect to dispose of these matters in 15 to 20minutes, although in future it might not be unusual to take two or more PNQs together. In the case of the question before us, I am grateful to the Minister for agreeing to respond against quite tight time constraints and also given the lack of precedent for how these matters are to be handled.

Private Notice Question

Transtec Staff: Employment Prospects

Sir Reg Empey: The Transtec group, including its Campsie operation, has been in administrative receivership  since December 1999. The employees at Campsie continue to be employed under the terms of their existing  employment contracts. Intense discussions are currently ongoing regarding a significant investment proposal that could secure the majority of the jobs at Campsie.

Ms Mary Nelis: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I wish to thank the Minister for his answer. Is the Minister aware, and he has touched on this in his answer, that there was to have been an announcement on 12 May on a possible takeover of Transtec by another company, and if that is the case, can he state that the jobs of the 300 workers employed in the Campsie factory will be safeguarded?

Sir Reg Empey: I cannot confirm that that announcement was due on 12 May but what I can say is that I am aware that intensive negotiations are currently ongoing with a very reputable automative industry company that would instil confidence in us that they are very significant players in their field. As you know, the Ford Motor Company is also the principal customer at Campsie and the receivers, Arthur Andersen together with the IDB, are rigorously pursuing the negotiations. These negotiations are at an advanced stage, but we cannot say for certain when there will be a result. Similarly, it would be wrong to go further than to say, as I did in my original answer, that, should the negotiations proceed well, there is certainly a possibility of retaining a majority of those jobs, but this is a private, commercial set of transactions.
The IDB could well be involved and stands ready to assist with the objective of ensuring that there is a viable manufacturing unit on that site. As Members are probably aware, the product made is cylinder heads for the Ford Motor Company, and the particular vehicle or engine for which these cylinder heads are being made is enjoying extremely buoyant market conditions at present. The potential exists therefore for a satisfactory outcome, but I would not wish to mislead the House by saying that we could guarantee that all the jobs would be secured. It is entirely a matter for the negotiations, but the IDB stands ready to assist in achieving the most positive outcome possible for that plant.

Mr William Hay: I thank the Minister for taking time out today to answer a number of our questions. There is deep uncertainty in the Londonderry area concerning the Campsie site and the employment of the 300 workers in that factory. I have two questions for the Minister, the first relating to the £7·5million grant aid that the company has already received. Where has that money come from? The other issue is the £139million the company currently owes to creditors. How much of that money is owed to creditors in Northern Ireland?
I thank the Minister, who has been very exact on the issue raised in the House today. I must remind him, however, that the sooner the uncertainty over the company in Campsie is brought to an end, the better for the workforce. I express my thanks to the Minister and his Department for the work they have done in attempting to salvage the company in some way.

Sir Reg Empey: The hon Member for Foyle will be aware that the administrative receivers, Arthur Andersen, are in charge of the company. The question of its creditors and how much is owed in Northern Ireland are matters exclusively for the administrative receivers at this stage. As far as grant aid is concerned, quite obviously assistance was forthcoming from the Industrial Development Board in the form of selective financial assistance to provide for capital equipment and training when the subsidiary was established.
The Member will also be aware that, because of the high-tech nature of the processes and the significant quantity of automation installed at the time of the project’s inception, a great deal of technical difficulties were encountered. The workforce was unused to these processes, and, indeed, litigation between the company and the suppliers of certain equipment is ongoing. The matter is currently before the courts, and it is not possible for me to elaborate on that, but that shows and demonstrates the depth of the difficulties surrounding this particular project. With regard to the total number of creditors, the Member will be aware that there is a subtext, in that a Department of Trade and Industry investigation is currently being conducted by independent inspectors into the affairs of Transtec plc, concentrating on the accounting treatment of a claim by the Ford Motor Company against Transtec.
I cannot prejudge the outcome of that investigation as it is sub judice, but Members will see at a glance that a significant number of complicated issues surround it. As to the need for a positive, satisfactory and early outcome, I fully appreciate the difficult situation in which the workforce finds itself. That having been said, there is a lot of work on the shop floor now. As I said in my original answer, the workforce is currently operating under the same terms of contract that it had when Transtec was in charge of its affairs. So the position of the workforce has not materially changed since the administrative receivers were appointed.

Ms Mary Nelis: Can the Minister elaborate on that? This is not just about the future of the workforce. Because this company is in receivership, those working at the plant have been denied mortgages when they have given the address of their employer. They are also having other financial difficulties because of this.

Sir Reg Empey: I can sympathise with the position in which many workers find themselves. This is not unique, I regret to say. I know from local government experience that when people are on temporary contracts, mortgage lenders and other finance houses take a very sceptical and jaundiced view of them, because, not having permanent, guaranteed employment, their income stream cannot be guaranteed.
The position is only resolvable with confirmation that agreement has been reached with a potential purchaser. Regrettably, as long as this company remains in administrative receivership, I do not see any solution to the problem. The basic problem is that mortgage lenders and finance houses do not regard people who may currently be earning satisfactory wages as being in long-term employment. They will not adjust their attitudes until the jobs are confirmed when the company passes back into private hands.

Mr John Tierney: I t

Sir Reg Empey: I do not quite understand what the Member means by a gap. This is the subject of a private negotiation. Since the company went into receivership, those employed on that date have had their contracts of employment adopted, on behalf of the company, by the administrative receiver. Those who were previously working at Transtec have had their contracts adopted by the administrative receivers. They remain employees of the company and continue to be employed under the same terms as before. The administrative receiver is liable for post-employment wages and salaries.
The most likely outcome, though I can not guarantee it, is that a significant number of employees would be retained by the new purchaser, depending on the contract that that company may have with the Ford Motor company. This is a competitive industry, based on supply and demand, and with more than one supplier in the EU. It is most likely that the contracts of the existing workforce would be adopted, but I cannot give any guarantees as it is a private matter.
Motion made
That the Assembly do now adjourn. — [Mr Deputy Speaker]

Sir John Gorman: The Business Committee has decided to allocate twohours to the question of the arts in Northern Ireland and onehour to the matter of the PFI scheme in Antrim.

The Arts in Northern Ireland

Mr Eugene McMenamin: The Government should facilitate and support the arts and culture but not be interventionist. It is imperative that artists, musicians, writers and others feel that the Government are there to assist and enable their work, but not to dictate on its content or ambition. That is a primary principle. A vital element of the success of art and culture has to do with the marketing and promotion of the work of writers and artists. It is vital that the Government do what they can to provide for the industry — related and infrastructural aspects of cultural endeavours.
What do we mean when we talk about arts, culture and leisure? What is the connection between them? An oft-quoted definition of culture is "what people do when they do not have to do anything." Is the answer to fill time, to leave something behind, to influence the world, to define oneself in any of the many activities which fall within the categories of arts, culture and leisure? Clearly economics in life is important, but that is not the only, or even the most important, dimension.
The other elements, the things we do when we do not have to do anything, are what feed the spirit of our society and our people. Without them there would be no society and, therefore, no economy.
It is a central element of our policy that money devoted to these areas is not allotted on the basis of patronage or charity, but is a key investment in our future. That is the bedrock of the SDLP’s policy in this central area of human existence. The pay-off from this investment is not to be measured in "across the counter" economic terms but in the terms of the growing health of society and in its capacity to know itself and to relate to the external world. Since we are dealing with Northern Ireland, a central element of our approach must be the acceptance that we deal not with a single culture but with many different strands of experience, bound together for better or worse. A central objective must be the reconciliation and integration of these different strands, not with a view to blandness, but to maximise the tension of creativity as well as the creativity of tension. By using art to tell our story we must not admit the unmentionable. If we do so we have failed our people.
It is important to define precisely what we are talking about. There are two fundamentally opposing views of art and culture. One sees the artist sitting high on a hill above the people, bestowing works and representations upon the many, who are taught not to question. The other approach is founded on the belief that each human being, citizen, or individual has a capacity for creativity and that together we have ownership of this collective imagination. This is the democratic view, and it should not surprise anyone that it is the view of the SDLP. Art and culture are the vehicles of reconciliation between our divided peoples. These fields give the greatest opportunity for challenging the prejudices, stereotypes and mutual incomprehension which lie at the heart of the fear which has gripped this society for generations. We need to create symbols and representations of what is common between us.
As far as the arts and disability are concerned, one in six people in Northern Ireland has a disability. There is a lack of good training to enable disabled artists to become facilitators. More role models are necessary with whom disabled people can identify, and facilitating workshops is one way of achieving this. At present, people have to travel outside the UK to find suitable training. Funding to support artists to undertake this training is limited, and disabled artists are not even given the same importance as other artists when they are applying for funding. At present, there is a limited number of disabled artists, approximately 20, practising in Northern Ireland, and with regard to arts programmes, they tend to be the same people. However, this will change if more workshops are offered to disabled groups and day centres, although the problem of participation still depends on the provision of accessible arts centres. A change of attitude towards disabled people is needed by everyone.
It is necessary to include disabled people at the planning stages of programmes. The best scenario would be to have a disabled person on each regional arts committee, acting as a voice for the disabled. That would bypass problems of access and participation at the planning stage, rather than their encountering frustration when the programme begins.
With respect to arts and education, we believe that the process of cultural rejuvenation must begin with education. The subject of segregated education has been a great bugbear in this society for many years, and although there has been some movement, there has not been enough.
But perhaps we have been putting the cart before the horse. Perhaps, what we need to do is take a leaf out of the Good Friday Agreement and approach this issue initially within the separate communities. We propose that the preliminary stage of the desegregation process should be a presentation, in the education system, of the culture of the "other". We believe that it is vital that the youth of each community initially be confronted with the culture of the "other", so that curiosity, interest and, ultimately, understanding can be created among our young people.
We propose a policy of adopting artists in residence in each of the three levels of education with a strong emphasis on choosing artists from a different tradition, to challenge and stretch the perceptions of our young people. This might be approached on an experimental basis to begin with but with increasing ambition as it develops. Younger children might be exposed to the experiment for, say, two weeks per annum in primary school, one month at secondary level and, perhaps, up to six months at third level.
On the matter of financial support for the arts, we in the SDLP favour the widest possible support for the arts, with particular emphasis on community and minority arts endeavours, as well as supporting the existing commitments to theatres, galleries and other centres of cultural life. We also favour the introduction of an expanded range of tax incentives. Although we do not raise our own taxes now, it is to be hoped that we will do some time in the near future so that there will be funding, allocated from private sources, for the assistance and promotion of the arts. Such a measure would greatly assist the important work being done by the action business body. It is important that the imperative to involve the business community in the artistic life of our society be approached from the perspective of demonstrating to the entrepreneurial community the enormous benefits which can accrue to business from a society whose social health is underwritten by a healthy cultural life.
One of the besetting fears of the artistic community is the financal insecurity associated with the creative life. To give an example, one of the great success stories of our neighbours across the border has been the introduction of tax exemption schemes for creative artists introduced by a former Finance Minister. This visionary proposal has not only had the benefit of facilitating the level of cultural expresion in Southern society, but has also attracted creative artists from all over the world to Ireland, where their presence contributes enormously to the culture and economic life of that society. We propose the adoption of a similar policy. We propose the introduction of an art and architectural tax or levy, currently in place in various European countries and the United States, to enable local authorities to have funding autonomy for cultural projects in their own areas . This would work on the basis of a levy of, say, 1% on all public developments, which would be used to fund the provision of local art works in appropriate local contexts, including such developments.
Another aspect of the cultural life of the Irish Republic which we might profitably examine is the story of the National Theatre Company, based at the Abbey Theatre in Dublin. This theatre, although admittedly patchy, has nevertheless provided a showcase, not merely for established and emerging writers, but for views of society which might otherwise have no means of expression. It has provided a guiding light for Southern society’s cultural growth, which is fed into other disciplines and media. This is something that we should seek to emulate. We should encourage the Lyric Theatre to develop its central role in sustaining and developing local artists and writers.
We might also take a leaf out of the Republic of Ireland’s book with regard to supporting the indigenous film industry. The Southern policy of strong state support and tax incentives has resulted in a spin off for the Irish economy. Good films require good stories and top-class writing. We need to provide seed capital to enable producers to take the kind of risks which are essential if this society is to be provided with reflections of itself which match the quality of those produced in the rest of Europe and in America.
This should improve dramatically with the current £65 million budget available to the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure and should be seen as a one-off boost for the infrastructural side of the industry.
We must also build on the achievements of the Northern Ireland Film Commission and extend its ability to fund and oversee the development of a strong indigenous industry. Perhaps it is necessary to develop a more corporate identity and modus operandi for this body to enable it to compete in the present cut-throat world of international movie making. This will not happen unless strenuous efforts are made to upgrade the technical infrastructure and provide the highest quality personnel. For example, the establishment of a high-tech ultra modern digital mastering facility and the training of talented people to run such a facility would add enormously to the attractiveness of Northern Ireland as a centre of excellence in this field.
In the last three years productions spent £6 million in Northern Ireland. This figure will rise as interest grows in the natural locations and skilled crew that Northern Ireland has to offer a creative film maker.
The SDLP believes that much improvement could be made by emulating the cultural strategies of our neighbours in the Republic. This can be a two-way-street, and we in Northern Ireland, as has been demonstrated by so many of our writers and artists, have much to offer the Republic given the overall image of Irish culture in the eyes of the world. One of the most successful examples of cross-border co-operation in the field of the arts is the jointly funded Tyrone Guthrie Centre at Annaghmakerrig in Co Monaghan. There, artists from both sides of the border work alongside one another. We should use that example as a model for future developments in this area of arts and culture. The guiding symbol of these endeavours should be the metaphorical notion of the illusive duck between the bodhrán and the Lambeg drum.
Television and radio are central elements of the culture of a modern society. Northern Ireland has been well served in some respects by our regional services, but there have been significant shortcomings in showcasing local writing on both radio and television. The main problem has been the centralisation of decision making in London, which has militated against the provision of satisfactory representations of this society on our airwaves and television screens.
Northern Ireland, treated as a region of the United Kingdom, is frequently approached from London in an objective manner which limits the self-expression of the true voice of this society. Writers, directors and performers complain that they are not listened to, that they are told what they can and cannot say about their society. We need a genuine regional policy which would give autonomy to artists and producers to give this society a more truthful and challenging idea of who we are and where we are going. We call on the BBC and the other providers of these services to look again at their policy on drama and other forms of culture with a view to encouraging self-confidence and creativity rather than handing down prescriptions and diktats.
While there has been an enormous growth in community-based theatre in Northern Ireland, there remains a suspicion that groups seeking to make particular statements about themselves and their lives have found it more difficult than others to obtain Government funding and support. Although a certain level of quality control is needed, we must develop a clear hands-off policy between the support and the content of cultural statements.
Language is a central element of culture. Clearly, English is the primary mode of expression in this society, but there are other tongues which not only have strong roots in the traditions of the different communities, but are core elements in the identity of those communities right up to the present moment. Unfortunately, languages such as Irish and Ulster-Scots are taught as foreign languages in Northern Ireland. Most people in the North do not encounter Irish in the education system until post-primary level, where it is taught in the same way as French or German. This practice ensures that languages which should be viewed as repositories of cultural memory are instead perceived in terms of their economic usefulness.
It is imperative that a cultural heritage programme be established to co-ordinate and focus efforts to bring young people in Northern Ireland into contact with the vital elements of their culture, including indigenous languages and music. In the Republic, GaelLinn has called for the appointment of more Irish language teachers in Northern Ireland and special language counsellors to assist young people seeking to learn Irish, and for the provision of facilities and other support to make Irish an attractive choice for students. The SDLP supports these proposals with regard to all the indigenous languages, and, specifically in the case of Irish, propose stronger cross-border contacts between relevant bodies and organisations. We should also have a policy of requiring from our broadcasters a greater public service commitment to the support of minority languages and cultures within our society, for example by providing subtitles to drama and current affairs programmes, and also by providing such programming in all the indigenous languages.
In the area of art and culture, the support of the contemporary must be combined with the maintenance of what has been handed down. A society can only grow culturally if it first has a clear notion of where it is coming from. A central element of the Government’s function in this area, therefore, is the preservation and celebration of the cultural artefacts and experiences of the past. In this respect, our society has been fortunate, but there is no room for complacency. We must invest in a sustained attempt to restore archival film footage, manuscripts and other artefacts of our past, and provide for this to be done on a continuing basis.
Having accepted the necessity of separating the administration of Government policy on the arts from the actual work of artists and writers, it is also important to provide a structure in which each layer of the cultural process can operate to the maximum possible extent. To this end, we recommend the creation of a policy implementation buffer between the area of Government policy and that of creativity. The SDLP recommends the establishment of a cultural task force to examine ways in which the cultural and artistic life of Northern Ireland might be galvanised at this critical juncture in our history. This task force should be independent of all existing bodies and be empowered both to make recommendations centred on expanding this society’s creative potential and to identify any factors that may be inhibiting the development of the cultural life of our people.
This body might also be given exceptional powers to develop and implement strategic thinking and to target available resources so as to develop the industrial potential of the cultural domain. The task force should comprise a combination of business and commercial experience, working artists and those who have been involved in arts administration on both sides of the border. Its remit should extend to the undertaking of a critical review of how the arts are administered in Northern Ireland. The task force would examine the effectiveness of existing bodies with responsibility for administering and fostering the arts, with a specific brief to create improved conditions for promoting the maximum level of access to the arts.
The present thought paradigm with regard to arts and culture might have one believe that its current level of Government support — £64million per annum — represents a substantial commitment. We beg to differ. If, as outlined at the outset of this document, the artistic and cultural domain is perceived as central to the life, including the economic life, of this society, then this level of funding reveals itself as relatively paltry. It will be clear, therefore, that what is required is not an incremental improvement on the existing commitment to this vital ingredient to a full life for our society, but a radical review of our whole thinking and approach.

Dr Ian Adamson: I would like to concentrate on language in the arts. My background is a Gaelic background in that my great-grandmother Lambie spoke nothing but Gaelic on the isle of Islay. She taught us well. My Gaelic has since gone away quite a bit, but the memories of her have lingered on. For my great- grandmother the centre of the Gaelic world was Islay, naturally, although the centre of my Gaelic world was Bangor, where I was born, because I was interested in the development of Ulster Gaelic, rather than other types of Gaelic, particularly "Official" Irish. And East Ulster Gaelic was, of course, something which I learned a lot about as a boy.
I also learned a lot about Ulster-Scots, which was the language of the neighbourhood around my native village of Conlig, and I have followed Ulster-Scots all my life. I tried to maintain an interest in the local community in Ulster-Scots when I was a young man, but various factors militated against that. Ulster-Scots, like its sister language of Scots in Scotland, is of course a West-Germanic language. It has its own vocabulary, grammar, literary tradition and dialectical regions. I first encountered it in written form in ‘Galloway Gossip,’ an old book my father brought over from Galloway which has various dialects of Scots in it. But Ulster-Scots has an eroded integrity and a marginalised status. This is, of course, a product of official neglect. However, that is not a rationale for ignoring it, as so many do. Ulster-Scots, like Irish Gaelic — I use that in the broad sense — has contributed to the linguistic diversity of NorthernIreland and to our English language literary tradition. However, Ulster-Scots, like Irish Gaelic, also deserves a less reactive and a more proactive approach to the support of its own language and literature.
Special mention, of course, must always be made of the place of Robert Burns in the Ulster-Scots literary tradition. Like the works of his predecessors, the poetry and songs of Burns and Lowland Scots were well known among all the Ulster-Scots communities during the late eighteenthcentury and throughout the nineteenthcentury. These works form a valid part of the Ulster-Scots literary tradition, just as Ulster-Scots writings were created in the same broader Ulidio-Scottish cultural context.
The first edition of Burns’s works was published in Kilmarnock in 1786, but the second edition was published in Belfast in 1787. This interaction remains part of the Ulster-Scots tradition. The Belfast Burns club is one of the oldest in the world and several other clubs exist in NorthernIreland. It would be a gross misunderstanding of the history of Burns clubs in NorthernIreland to dismiss their significance as being only relevant to expatriate Scots living in Ulster. I am aware that individual contemporary Ulster-Scots writers have regularly had works rejected by local publishers on the grounds that there was no market for this type of material. So I endorse the Arts Council’s recommendation to focus future support on the writers rather than on the publishers.
I also welcome the Arts Council’s positive attitude towards community drama. Amateur drama in rural Antrim and Down, including productions by Young Farmers Clubs, provide some of the last surviving opportunities for some Ulster-Scots to be heard in public situations. Many local plays continue to be written in the farmhouse kitchen genre, and this is one of the liveliest twentieth century Ulster-Scots literary forms. It is not unusual for amateur dramatic societies from Ulster-Scots speaking areas to ad lib standard English scripts directly into Ulster-Scots. Classical drama exists in Scots translation as well and opportunities could be exploited by the Arts Council to bring Scots language drama productions from Scotland to our theatres.
In the early 1800s many observers reported that the airs and ballads of the Ulster-Scots communities in Antrim and Down were merely those that were strictly Scottish. The tunes identified by scores of Ulster-Scots folk poets are suitable settings for their songs and provide confirmation of the overwhelmingly Scottish character of their musical repertoire from 1780 onwards. We have a flourishing band movement in contemporary Ulster-Scots areas. Much of it is grounded in the Ulster-English tradition of mid and south Ulster — exceptions to this rule are the Royal Scottish Pipe Band Association and the Accordion Band Movement. These musical traditions and their instruments remain essentially Ulster-Scots in their identities.
In recent years the all-Ireland Scottish Pipe Band Championships, held in Northern Ireland, have attracted tens of thousands to each event. However, little acknowledgement is given to the exceptional international achievements of Ulster pipers and accordionists. Despite our small numbers, the world championships in all grades, including solo prizes, are regularly and currently held by people from Northern Ireland. I support the proposal by the Pipe Band Movement that support be given to its piping and drumming school.
The Scottish pipes, along with Lambeg drums, remain one of the few genuine traditional music art forms in Northern Ireland in that they rarely, if ever, follow written music, and they are learnt orally. Solo pipers and fiddlers were the traditional accompaniment for country square dances and reels over a century ago. Ulster-Scots fiddling and accordion playing is still associated with country dancing today. Ulster-Scots traditional fiddle music exists, but it is rarely played beyond small local groups to small or non-existent audiences. It has no recognition beyond the smaller number who play in it.
The long-established and flourishing branches of the Royal Scottish Country Dance Society in Northern Ireland receive no funding from the Arts Council. However, they receive some limited support from the Sports Council. The inescapable conclusion of such a policy appears to be that any non-Irish tradition of dance is only a keep-fit exercise. Informal reels and country quadrilles also survive as traditional dances performed in small groups as a genuine legacy of the Ulster-Scots folk dance tradition. These survivals are not part of Irish set dancing.
The catalogue of denial and marginalisation of Ulster-Scots culture in Northern Ireland is too lengthy to be properly addressed at this time. However, it needs to be addressed by the Arts Council in the context of regular audits of evaluation and assessment procedures to ensure that no group in Northern Ireland is discriminated against. As stated, the issues are complex, and while the description of traditional music as either Irish or Orange is simplistic and unhelpful, the broader issue of the criteria for funding needs to be addressed urgently. Traditional arts are subject to a variety of influences including Gaelic, Orange, Irish, English and Scottish.
These core traditions of our country deserve support in their own right to ensure that the traditional arts are not collectively seen as the preserve of any one section of the community.

Mr Barry McElduff: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Is mian liom toiseacht agus saibhreas na hÉireann sna healaíona agus sa chultúr a cheiliúradh. Aithnítear saibhreas tallainne na tíre seo ar fud na cruinne. Tá clú agus cáil ar fud chlár an domhain ar ár gcuid aisteoirí, filí, ceoltóirí, ár gcuid damhsóirí agus ealaíontóirí. Thuill siad ariamh moladh idirnáisiúnta thar na bearta — agus a chúis sin acu.
Is é misean mo pháirtí ná déanamh cinnte go mbíonn deis ag achan saoránach a bheith páirteach sa tsaibhreas seo agus córas a chruthú ina mbíonn na healaíona agus an cultúr ar fáil i bhfírinne do gach Éireannach, go háirithe dóibh siúd a himeallaíodh san am atá thart mar gheall ar mhí-chumas, ar dhearcadh polaitiúil, ar inscne, ar aicme nó ar áit chónaithe. Dúshlán fúinn uilig é seo, ar ndóigh.
Cúis ghéar achrainn ariamh anall é dáileadh acmhuinní ar lucht cruthaithe agus lucht úsáide na n-ealaíon agus an chultúir — cúis achrainn sainmhíniú féin na n-ealaíon.
I want to begin LeasCheann Comhairle by celebrating the fact that the island of Ireland is rich in arts and culture. Ireland’s wealth and success has won tremendous international acclaim and is recognised universally. Anyone could be subjective about listing people who have achieved tremendous things in the arts and culture, but look at whom Ireland has produced: actors such as Liam Neeson and Stephen Rea; poets including CathalO’Sharkey and SeamusHeaney; musicians such as SineadO’Connor, the Corrs and Clannad; and dancers like Riverdance and others.

Ms Jane Morrice: Van Morrison.

Mr Barry McElduff: VanMorrison, of course, and our painters JackBYates and JohnLavery. Digressing momentarily, it was a matter of some regret to myself and others that there was an attempt recently to remove history of art as an ‘A’ level subject from the curriculum. I am glad that it was reinstated in the course of the curriculum review. The people I have named have excelled themselves. They have received international recognition and have projected a very positive image of this country where art knows no boundaries.
It is the mission of my party to ensure that every citizen of this country can share in its artistic and cultural wealth. We want to create a system where arts and culture are truly accessible to all Irish people, North and South, and particularly to those who have been marginalised in the past because of disability, gender, political belief or geographical location. That creates quite a challenge for us all.
Any discussion about the arts must touch upon the allocation of finite resources both to the creators and to the consumers of art. This has always been hotly debated, as indeed has the very definition of art itself. I know that the European definition of art incorporates culture. We have much food for thought on this matter.
Is cuma cé bhéas i mbun riarachán agus maoiniú na n-ealaíon, an Arts Council sna sé chondae nó an Chomhairle Ealaíon sna sé chondae is fichead, caithfidh aitheantas a thabhairt don ealaín atá á cruthú ag gnáthdhaoine. Baineann an ealaín seo le daoine; tá suim acu inti, nó taispeánann sí nádúr ár sochaí dúinn.
Caithfidh a aithint gur cruthaíodh an iomad cinéal ealaíne le triocha bliain anuas — an múrmhaisiú, agus cruthú foirmeacha radaiceacha den cheol dúchasach, mar shampla. Fríd na healaíona seo thig le daoine amharc ar a n-eispeireas féin fríd a súile féin. Thig leo a gcuid scéalta féin a insint.
Creidim go gcaithfidh ceangal níos dlúithe a bheith ann idir lucht maoinithe na n-ealaíon agus lucht a soláthair ag gach leibhéal. Caithfidh ceangal a bheith ann fosta le hoideachasóirí le go dtig leis an aos óg páirt iomlán a ghlacadh sna healaíona agus sa chultúr. Agus go mbeidh grá á chothú don chultúr i measc an aosa óig.
Tá an féin-chur in iúl agus an chruthaitheacht tábhachtach, don aos óg ach go háirithe.
Whoever is responsible for administering or funding the arts, whether it be the Arts Council in the Six Counties or an Chomhairle Ealaíona in the Twenty-six Counties, they need to really appreciate art being created by ordinary people and which is relevant to ordinary people. Art should interest people and reflect the nature of the society in which they live. It will take a mixture of community arts and sometimes what are known as local appreciation of fine arts, or higher arts. The definitions are always most interesting.
Proper recognition needs to be given to mural art and to community drama, which might be described as amateur, but only in terms of remuneration, not quality. Those types of media enable people to reflect their own experiences and tell their stories from their own perspectives. There needs to be greater liaison at all levels between the providers of arts and culture and arts funders. There needs to be closer contact between the educationalists and the arts practitioners so that a grá for arts and culture can be properly developed and fostered in our young people, because self expression and creativity is so crucial for them. Mol an óige agus tiocfaidh sí, mar a deirtear.
I will concentrate my remaining remarks on other priority areas that require some focus. The Irish language is one area. It was totally recognised in the Good Friday Agreement, and all that we ask for is that that is given actuality in terms of public recognition by statutory agencies and such bodies.
Another area requiring focus is in the promotion of a wide range of qualitative art forms, both modern and traditional — in this matter the revitalisation of traditional arts and crafts is very important. We need to increasingly recognise emerging and growing all-inclusive community arts festivals or féilte and the value of single identity work, wherever that may come from, without the need for social engineering to suit funding criteria, which is not totally natural.
Very importantly, there needs to be a single all-Ireland administration for the arts to avoid unnecessary duplication of work. There are other areas of public life where this would also apply — agriculture, tourism, industrial development. We need to learn lessons from the rest of Ireland.
Mr McMenamin earlier referred to those areas of co-operation which presently exist, and I would like to think that Mr McGimpsey would be like Michael D Higgins and that we would see a ministerial-led Department — I think that he has done good work to date. Michael D Higgins said in relation to the arts that the dissenting voice must be heard. Not everybody has to be a conformist when it comes to the arts.
Another area for focus is in putting people before buildings sometimes, but not all of the time. The National Lottery has been kind to theatres in places such as Armagh and Cookstown and these are tremendous assets. However, it is important that we consider people as well as buildings, and that we provide suitable training courses for budding young actors and actresses. People presently have to go to London for a suitable course. If they are aged 17 and have a talent for acting that is where they invariably will have to go.
We need to focus on the innovative use of existing buildings and facilitating touring theatre groups. I am calling for the re-orientation of public money towards these areas without huge displacement, and a debate needs to take place about that.
We need to look at bringing art to the people and seeking new audiences. There are criteria laid down for funding. Let us look at who meets those criteria best of all.
Finally, television, radio and other forms of multi-media are so crucial these days. That was the subject of a very interesting recent article by Tom McGurk in ‘The Sunday Business Post’. BBC television, in particular, needs to take note that the Irish language exists and is thriving, and that many of us look to Dublin, and not London, as our capital city. That is a fact of life in terms of this society.
In conclusion, Ós rud é nach bhfuil mórán ama agam sa díospóireacht seo, díreoidh mé mo fhoclaí deireannacha ar rudaí tábhachtacha eile. Cur chun cinn réimse mór de ealaíona cineálacha, idir nua agus thraidisiúnta; ealaíona pobail; forbairt féilte pobail; athbheochan ealaíon agus ceirdeanna traidisiúnta. Caithfidh aitheantas ceart a thabhairt do luach obair an aonaráin agus níos lú béime a leagan ar an innealltóireacht shóisialta ar mhaithe leis an mhaoiniú —chan ar mhaithe leis an ealaín. Caithfidh tionscadail ealaíne fríd mheán na Gaeilge a cur chun cinn.
Caithfidh riarachán na n-ealaíon bheith ar bhonn uile-Éireann, — agus tá sin fíorthábhachtach — é freagrach do mhuintir na hÉireann a dhéanfas deimhin go bhfuil dáileadh cothrom, éifeachtach airgid ann. Coscfaidh seo an dúbailt neamhriachtanach. Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle.

Mr Eamonn ONeill: I too support the sentiments expressed in this debate. While absent from the Chamber I listened to the debate, and I welcome the number of ideas that I heard and which should be able to be adopted and put to use.
We are at a very important stage as far as arts and culture are concerned. I agree with Members who said they recognised those who contributed to the good past that we have had. We have lived through a period of great social upheaval, which, in common with other great social upheavals in history, has led to self-examination and, as a result, increased artistic endeavour and output.
As a student I remember being told, in impressive terms, that 24,000 books had been written about the reasons for the outbreak of the First World War. The examinations of the causes of the troubles in Northern Ireland must be getting close to that, but there is something in the literature that has been produced that recognises artistic output as a result of self-examination.
(Madam Deputy Speaker [Ms Morrice] in the Chair)
We are at the stage where we now have the potential to move forward. Of all the things that we have done, the creation of the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure has been one of the most positive and exciting things. The members of the Committee and I were enthralled — and I use that word carefully — when we met the permanent secretary, Aideen McGinley, and her representatives. The excitement, the clear enthusiasm, the recognition of the challenges and the openness to suggestion that were coming from the team filled all of the members of the Committee with hope for the future.
Arts, museums and all of the other areas that go to make up the broad brief of the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure were, in the past, the lesser-funded elements of larger Departments, and they did not receive the attention or encouragement they deserved. They came low in the pecking order. Now they are in a Department of their own, with a permanent secretary of their own and a Minister of their own who — if I may agree with others — has, so far, impressed the Committee.
I make no bones about saying that publicly. The excitement and the enthusiasm displayed by the Department will make an impact.
As I said, we are at the edge, and I think of it as the edge of a renaissance in culture, arts and leisure in Northern Ireland. We can spearhead that renaissance through the Assembly, the Committee and the Department working together to create that open and transparent approach to the whole of arts and culture that I think we would all welcome.
When people talk about the arts they immediately begin to think of cutting up a cake and redistributing it in certain ways. Unfortunately, as we have discovered, the cake is very small. The reason for that is what has been happening over this last five to 10 years. There has been no increase in funding in the Department, not even to take account of inflation. That has been a debt on all areas in the Department, and it will take a considerable readjustment to bring it back even to a fair basis on which we could operate.
Some of the items in MrMcMenamin’s document are worth examining. I am not necessarily saying that we should adopt all of them, but they are the types of things we should be looking at in terms of funding. We should be looking at more private funding for the arts. There are untapped possibilities in that area. We should be looking at the possibility of convincing central Government — as it happens, we have not got control over taxation — to have some kind of exemption or reduction for arts activity and artists in Northern Ireland. It would not be unlike the regime that was introduced so successfully in the Republic some years ago.
Another very interesting idea, which comes from Europe, is that there should be some kind of tax — dare I use that word — or some kind of contribution from developers towards a local council arts budget. The figure currently used is 1% of development costs — quite a lot when you think about it. It has proved to be a successful way of gathering money for the arts in some European countries. If we had applied that in the Belfast City Council area — when you think of all of the development that has taken place there over the last few years — we would have a thriving budget for investment in the arts.
These types of ideas are worth examining. We may not agree to adopt them or go with them, but certainly they represent the type of thing we should be doing.
Finally, when our civilisation is judged, and if at that stage we have spent money only on functional things and the things that we need to live on, if we have spent nothing on the creative, nothing for the soul, nothing for the aesthetic, and nothing for arts and culture, then we will be judged very poorly indeed.

Mr Jim Shannon: I thank the Member for West Tyrone for raising this issue. It gives us an opportunity to express ourselves in Ulster-Scots and to talk a wee bit about the culture of it.
The wurd "irts" taks in a mukkil whein fowkgate daeins o ilka sort, frae airt til music, frae dance til daein drama an skreivin buiks. The heicht at fowgates is hauden in maun aye be taen ower ocht tent o, an a biggit-up kennin o a bodie’s fowkgates cannae dae ocht but gie a lift ti weans an auld fowk baith. Houaniver, ower ocht o aw sic daeins is that yin fowkgate cleik in Norlin Airlann soudnae be gien aw the heftin whaniver the tither fowkgate bis unner-docht. Ivan Herbison ledges in his skreivin ‘The Rest is Silence’, whilk he gien oot til the collogue ‘Varieties of Scottishness: Exploring the Ulster-Scottish Connection’ at a heich heid yin o the Presbyterian Kirk, no lang syne, opined at a whein Presbyterians theday, qo he, "feel like an invisible people".
I should like to talk specifically on the Ulster-Scots aspect of the arts in Northern Ireland. The term "arts" takes in a wide range of different cultural events and activities, from art to music, from dance to plays and books. The importance of culture must continually be highlighted, and an increased awareness of one’s culture can serve to benefit young and old alike. However, it is important that one cultural identity in Northern Ireland is not emphasised while another community’s culture is ostracised or neglected. IvanHerbison states in his document ‘The Rest Is Silence’, which he presented at the Varieties of Scottishness: Exploring the Ulster-Scottish Connection conference, that a prominent member of the Presbyterian Church recently remarked that he thought his community
"feel like an invisible people."
He said
"It is as if they do not exist."
Michael Longley identified in his ‘Varieties of Irishness’ at the first Cultural Traditions Group conference a prevalent tendency
"to undervalue, even to ignore the Scottish horizon".
Herbison believed that this was because there was a tendency to see only two traditions in Northern Ireland instead of examining the rich variety of cultural traditions among the Ulster Protestants.
It is now important that we mainstream the wide diversity of culture and cultural identity instead of seeing this as a debate of two sides. For this reason, in the short time I have left to speak, I wish to concentrate on the Ulster-Scots language, to give a brief history and to look at developments in this area in recent years.
Ian Adamson has already said something of Ulster-Scots, clearly outlining how it has developed and its importance to many of us in this Province. All those who have spoken on the subject thus far have said that language is important. Language is often unique to a particular group or place, and it often carries with it a rich cultural history. Language has always been seen as a mark of identity, and the language debate has particular significance in Northern Ireland.
In Northern Ireland there are a number of distinct traditions and nationalities — the Irish, the Ulster Scots and the Ulster English. In addition, we have a number of diverse cultural identities such as the Chinese and Indian communities. One of the most significant literary works on the cultural significance of language is a play by the well-known playwright, BrianFriel, entitled ‘Translations’. It deals with the transitional period in Ireland when place names were changed from Irish to English. However, its deeper theme is the importance of language and identity. Brian Friel admits what many in this House who speak Irish fail to, namely that language can be an emotive political issue and not a purely cultural matter. The issue of language has always been emotive in Ireland, both North and South, because of the political connotations which the debate carries.
However, I feel that Ulster-Scots is not a political point-scoring exercise, but rather an expression of people’s need and desire to find out who they are and where they come from, and many Members already know that. The Ulster-Scots cultural identify has been ignored for many years and scoffed at by many who openly dismiss their own linguistic culture as a dialect. Those who say this only show their cultural ignorance by expressing such an opinion. The linguistic division between Ulster and the rest of the island predates even the plantation. However, the present pattern of linguistic division is a product of the settlement of Ulster during the seventeenth century. Over this period these linguistic influences, most notably the Teutonic and Old Norse strands and the influx of Lowland Scots into Ulster, led to the evolution of Ulster-Scots speech unique to the north-east of Ireland. I should perhaps mention that it went across Northern Ireland to Donegal and eventually to the new lands of America and Canada as well.
IvanHerbison states that the language possessed many of the distinguishing characteristics of a separate national language rather than those of a mere regional dialect, not only in pronunciation, but also in orthography, vocabulary and syntax.
Ulster-Scots is not only important for its complex historical development, but it is also important culturally because it has its own literary tradition. Between 1750 and 1850 some 60 to 70volumes of poetry were printed which belonged to the Ulster-Scots literary tradition of the rhyming weavers, the poets who came from a rural working class background and who were the descendants of Scottish settlers.
I hope, in some small way, that the great cultural wealth in Ulster-Scots has been explained today, and connected directly to the Ulster-Scots language. Some people in this Chamber self-righteously declare themselves to be full supporters of cross-community work and events. However, it is clear to me and to many others that those people believe that the Irish identity and culture should be accepted by all as cultural rather than political, and the cultural identity of Ulster Protestants should be suppressed.
Nationalists want Irish traditional music bands and Irish dancing to be accepted by all as non-political symbols of culture, while they simultaneously try to suppress every element of Ulster Protestant culture, including the very organisation which was set up to defend Ulster Protestant culture — the Orange Order. There is no difference in displays of culture. An Irish dancer is as much a symbol of one tradition as a flute band or an Orange procession is a symbol of another. Yet Nationalists will not even tolerate the thought of Orangemen walking or of faintly hearing the sound of a band. Indeed, some people go out of their way, some travel miles upon miles, just to be offended.
It is time for Nationalists to take a look at their own hypocritical policies on culture and become mature enough to accept the culture of all sections of this community because we are not going away either. It is time for Nationalists to accept that there are many elements of Ulster Protestant culture which are rich and beautiful. We should be, and indeed we are, proud of our cultural heritage.
For many years, propaganda machines have been trying to show that Ulster Protestant culture is bigoted and that it is a pale imitation of Irish culture. It is now time for the true picture to be shown: that of the diversity of identities and cultures. Some work has already been done to promote the Ulster-Scots language and traditions. It is valuable for all traditions to learn about this unique element of Northern Ireland’s culture. The only way for Northern Ireland to move forward is for everyone to be tolerant of each other and each other’s differing cultures and identities. It is possible to be proud of your own identity, yet respect the richness of someone else’s, and I believe it is time that those propagating the Irish language’s viewpoint open wide their somewhat narrow minds and see some good in the culture of other traditions in Northern Ireland.
However, Nationalists will have to accept that language can be emotive and offending, especially when used as part of a political points-scoring exercise. That has been demonstrated in this House by some of those who insist on using the Irish language when they plainly cannot speak it, using it merely to cause offence. Language does not cause offence when used in a cultural context by those genuinely interested in the language, but it does when it is used as part of a political points-scoring exercise.
In conclusion, I would simply state that equality must be given to all cultural traditions, instead of the scoffing and intolerance shown by some across this Chamber to all elements of Ulster Protestant and Ulster-Scots culture.

Mr Kieran McCarthy: As a Member of the Culture, Arts and Leisure Committee I fully support every effort to engage as many people as possible in creative leisure time. The arts are for everyone, regardless of one’s political opinion or affiliation. I hope we go forward together in promoting arts of all descriptions to people of all descriptions.
We are not short of suggestions in planning for the optimum use of public funding in the sphere of culture, arts and leisure in Northern Ireland. There is, for example, the report on the recent FutureSearch conference, which was organised by the permanent secretary to the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure. That document should provide a number of useful ideas in creating a strategic framework for action in arts and culture in Northern Ireland over the next 20years. We have also seen published in recent times a strategy review for the Arts Council in Northern Ireland entitled ‘Opening up the Arts’.
The aim is to have a new Arts Council strategy in place by April2001. This review makes reference to many issues of concern to Members, such as the community arts budget. The review says
"the rapid growth of community arts in recent years has not been accompanied by adequate evaluation."
No doubt the Minister for Culture, Arts and Leisure, who has graced us with his presence today, and his officials are taking note of this and the many other valid points in the Arts Council’s review.
Community arts are playing an even greater role in reconciliation, and that is to be welcomed and encouraged. There is a group in my area called Bright Sparks, with whom I am very proud to have associations. It comes from Portaferry and caters for youngsters from the age of three. That group puts on wonderful shows that could be the pride of Northern Ireland. Unfortunately, probably through lack of funding, it is confined to the Strangford constituency. There are many such community groups.
It would be remiss of me not to plug another very important organisation called Cinemagic. Members may well know of the activities of this group and what it does for the young film-makers of NorthernIreland. I have to pay tribute to one of its directors — my niece, MissShonaMcCarthy. I am proud to tell the Chamber about Cinemagic’s activities.
Many interesting ideas are being generated about funding for the arts. The point that I would like to make is to do with organisational structures. Public funding of the arts is not only a matter for the Arts Council; many other bodies including the National Lottery, district councils, European institutions and other Government Departments — notably Education — are involved as well. Already those hoping to benefit from the system find it amazingly complex. My plea to the Minister — and I am sure that my colleagues on the Culture, Arts and Leisure Committee will support me on this — is that special efforts be made to keep the design of any future restructuring as simple as possible and the cost of bureaucracy as low as possible. We do not want to find that efforts to increase funding are rewarded only by increased administrative costs, with no significant benefit to Northern Ireland citizens.
In conclusion, the arts in Northern Ireland play a very important role in bringing people together. It is vital that we support every effort to bring the arts to an even greater number of people and that can only be done by properly funding every aspect of the arts, culture and leisure programme. I hope that the Minister takes on board all that has been said about this today.

Mr Peter Weir: I had not originally intended to speak in this debate, so I will keep my remarks brief. As a former culture, arts and leisure spokesman for the Ulster Unionist Party, albeit for a period of fourdays — perhaps the shortest-lived party spokesman ever — I feel compelled to say something on the subject.
There are few subjects which should unite the House more than the arts. It is a subject which touches the hearts of everybody, whether Members of this House or the general public. They may have a love of the cinema, literature or fine paintings in an art gallery; they may have a love of traditional or country and western music, or they may want to buy the latest Blur Lightning Seeds CD. This is an important subject, and we have to look at what the guiding principles should be when dealing with it.
The first guiding principle should be that we approach this subject with a degree of realism. In the past, because culture, arts and leisure have tended to be Cinderella aspects of Government which have been hived off to various Departments, they have often been susceptible to Government cutbacks. We have to realise that the pressure for an increase in resources for the arts is going to be met with a great deal of resistance, given the scarcity of resources in the future, and we are always going to be faced with this situation. If, for example, we get additional money, will that money be spent on a particular arts project, or is it going to be spent on health or education?
There will always be worthy causes which, on many occasions, are going to have a greater call on our resources than the arts, so it is important that we realise that whatever money is spent on the arts — or, indeed, if we are able to get any increase in spending on the arts — it will not be a vast amount or a vast increase. While I agree with Mr McMenamin that we ought to ensure that the individual artist has freedom of expression and that interference does not occur, as a body we have to ensure that the money we spend on the arts is carefully monitored to ensure that we gain the maximum value for money from public investment in the arts.
The second issue that has been highlighted by Mr McMenamin is that when looking at spending in the arts, we have got to do so in an imaginative context. He mentioned the great efforts that have been made in the Republic of Ireland and other places in the world. New York is one of the areas which has tended to benefit from this. A great deal of emphasis has been placed there on trying to attract film-makers and backing its local film industry. We have seen in the Republic of Ireland, for example, how that has paid dividends, both in an artistic sense, in terms of expanding the film industry and expanding the artistic content in the Republic of Ireland, and also from an economic point of view. For example, in recent years a film which is more associated with Scotland, ‘Braveheart’, was shot on location in the Republic of Ireland.
With the advent of the ceasefires there has been an increased interest in Northern Ireland from a cinematic point of view, and perhaps film-makers feel that it is more accessible. We need to look imaginatively at how we can promote the arts in such a way as to benefit the people of Northern Ireland, both in terms of enriching their artistic experience and also the practical benefit that could bring to the economy.
Thirdly, as a number of Members have mentioned, we have to promote cultural diversity. The point has been made — and it is a very true one — that culture, particularly in the Ulster-British sense and also, to some extent, the Ulster-Scots sense, has tended to be marginalised and ignored in the past. I would very much hold to that view. This has not simply been because of a lack of recognition from official sources. At times in the past the Unionist community has perhaps not been aware of its own culture; it has perhaps not gone out to embrace its culture and history.
It is important that that diversity is celebrated. One thing slightly disappointed me about this debate, and I am glad to see at least that Jim Shannon was the first person to mention it. When we have been looking at arts and culture in NorthernIreland, there has obviously been much concentration on Irish, the Irish culture, the Ulster/British culture and, indeed, on Ulster-Scots. Jim Shannon has been the only Member so far to mention that we are living in a multicultural society and to highlight that there are more than just the British and the Irish communities in NorthernIreland. There is a wide range of communities — for example, Chinese, Indian and Jewish — and it is important that, as part of that feeling of cultural diversity, we ensure that those communities are well represented as well. The artistic diversity which they can bring to NorthernIreland should be celebrated. That would be enriching for the whole of society and help to break down some of the barriers within it.
Finally, we should ensure that we have not only cultural diversity, but cultural tolerance. And in celebrating the various cultures here, we should do so in a fashion that does not become — and I have seen this happening on a number of occasions — cultural imperialism. From my own background, for example, having spent a lot of time at Queen’s, I know the very negative effect that the Irish language signs there had on the Unionist community. That was a feeling of cultural imperialism. Whatever the intentions behind the signs — and I am sure that many of the people who supported them did so for the best of reasons — it created a feeling of oppression and of cultural imperialism. When any section of the community feels a sense of cultural imperialism, that leads, unfortunately, not to cultural tolerance, but to cultural and artistic intolerance.
We must encourage people to celebrate the diversity of our culture but to do so in a way in which they do not feel that a particular culture is being forced down their throats, or feel that they are being forced to learn a language, for example, Irish, against their wishes. We must encourage tolerance and diversity but ensure that it does not stray into the realms of imperialism.

Mrs Eileen Bell: I am very interested in what the Member is saying. Does he agree that the cultural traditions group of the Community Relations Council does the work that he is talking about, and that if we all embraced that, it would help to enhance and expand cultural diversity in all our traditions?

Mr Peter Weir: I am talking in terms of the broader context, rather than getting into the specifics of particular groups. We must consistently seek better ways for the various groups to get that message across. We must have cultural and artistic diversity. This has great potential to educate, to inspire and to uplift the human spirit. I am glad that we have had this debate.
Mr McMenamin has helped to open our minds to a wide range of possibilities. Whatever concerns I have had about the setting up of a separate Department and the administrative costs involved, it has the advantage of allowing the Assembly to focus on a wide range of issues in culture, arts and leisure, and ensuring that the people of NorthernIreland are properly served in this area. I commend the motion to the Assembly.

Mr Arthur Doherty: I compliment my Colleague EugeneMcMenamin for highlighting the importance of culture, arts and leisure as an essential element in our work to bring peace and a decent quality of life to our citizens.
I had a cultural experience a few weeks ago. I watched a Billy Connolly special on late night television, very irreverent, very funny and very perceptive. I can imagine Billy Connolly talking about arts and culture. "Crawford, me and Nigel are going up to the Waterfront to see a concerto. Will you join us in the wine bar for a glass of Mouton Cadet?"
To some, culture is high culture: concerts and theatre, art galleries, poetry and, of course, eating out. Everything else is not culture; it is common: television, bingo, football, discos, lotteries and carrys-out — or carry-outs. [Laughter] I am being too grammatical for myself.
If that is your idea of culture, arts and leisure, you might be right in thinking that it is not nearly as important as other areas of Government, such as health, housing, education, environment and employment. But you would be wrong. As that cultural guru Jimmy Cricket says, "There’s more." We are getting very sophisticated. Now we also have Cultural Heritage. It has capital letters because it is very important, particularly as a way of killing time, and other things, during the long, hot Ulster summer.
There is Cultural Heritage A, full of flags and emblems, arches and murals and banners, collarettes and hard hats, walking up and down, Ulster-Scots, balaclavas and black helmets. There is Cultural Heritage B, full of flags and emblems, murals and protests, diddly-dee music and dancing from the knees down, tír gan teanga, tír gan anam berets and black glasses.
I make the point very firmly that I have no wish to belittle the culture of any group. What I am trying, awkwardly, to do is to describe each group’s culture from the perspective of the other. What I find totally abhorrent is Cultural Heritage C, which unites and divides at the same time. It is a culture of bigotry and sectarianism, violence and punishment, up to and including the ultimate sanction of death. This sanction can be directed against one’s own side for not conforming, or against the other side just for being different and therefore a threat.

Mr John Fee: Actually, the Member and I conspired to allow me to contribute to a debate which I was not listed to take part in. His point is very important. He spoke about balaclavas, sashes and the like. I have a unique experience of arts and culture in Northern Ireland. At school, I had a wonderful teacher called SeanHollywood who introduced me to the dramatic arts and the amateur drama circuit. He inspired an understanding of what amateur drama can do: the potency of drama as a means of communication, a manner of understanding the point of view of others, and a way of building empathy between people with differing cultural backgrounds and experiences, of building sympathy, and through that, unity between people from different backgrounds.
I am glad that the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure is here, for I have a simple plea, and I take this opportunity to make it to him. The amateur drama circuit in Northern Ireland has been the single continuous arena in which people from a broad range of backgrounds and beliefs have met, exchanged views, communicated and come to some understandings. I welcome the current generation of Newpoint Players, who are here in the Gallery today. Within that group, and within all the groups on the Ulster drama circuit, there is a diverse range of religious, political and other views, yet they have found a forum in which they can exchange them and come to terms with them. It is the single element of arts and leisure in Northern Ireland that is wholly underfunded, with no structural supports whatsoever, and it is maintained by a massive voluntary effort.
I ask the Minister to take a personal interest in the amateur drama circuit and see what provision he can make, or what resources he can release, to help support the work of people in every section of the community in Northern Ireland.

Mr Derek Hussey: I would like to make a very brief point, and I see my councillor colleague from another life, MrMcMenamin, looking at me and wondering what I am going to say. Mr A Doherty talked about high culture and low culture. Is it not amazing that what some people would call low culture — whether it be John Hogan or Billy Connolly or whatever — seems to be financially viable, whereas what is called high culture often needs the public purse to assist it?

Mr Arthur Doherty: My answer to that is yes. I thank the first person for intervening — he managed to get more time than I am going to need. But it was in a good cause, and I am grateful for that.
The people of most countries take a genuine pride in their culture and heritage, no matter how diverse it is. It draws them together and brings joy and colour to their lives. That is not the case with us, and that is tragic. Now tell me that culture, arts and leisure is not important. Now tell me it is not time we caught ourselves on and stopped tub-thumping or hurling clichés or veiled insults at one another and demanding equality so long as we, in Orwellian terms, are more equal than others.
Do not tell me that all cultures and traditions are good and must be protected, no matter what the cost in human suffering, misery and terror. Cannibalism, slavery and ritual mutilation of young girls and boys, torturing, burning of witches and heretics are all examples of traditions and cultural heritage which, thankfully, have now gone in most places — sadly, not all. We could all make a long list of elements of our culture and traditions that should be changed or done away with. There is much that is good that could unite us and bring us joy, but there should be no place for anything divisive, dangerous or downright evil. The Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure, his Department and the Assembly Committee have much to do, and I wish them well.

Ms Mary Nelis: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I am grateful to Mr McMenamin for raising this subject. I believe the arts can be and should be a unifying medium. It can break down class, religious and cultural barriers, and that is what I hope we in the Culture, Arts and Leisure Committee will be directing our attention to over the years. The Culture, Arts and Leisure Committee is currently conducting an inquiry into fishing. As I listen to members of the angling fraternity telling the inquiry about various aspects of fishing that I knew little or nothing about, I now appreciate that angling is, indeed, an art, and it should be encouraged.
The island of Ireland is rich in all aspects of arts and culture, and it is a fundamental part of our historical heritage as Celts. We can point to our ancient Celtic heritage, which is aptly illustrated and internationally famous, and it has been an inspiration to all. Countless artists, painters, writers, musicians and architects take inspiration from that ancient civilisation known as the Celts. We can dispute whether we are Celts or not, but I do not think any of us can claim we are purely this or purely that.
However, we can point to the heritage that has been left to us. We can point to the Book of Kells and the Book of Durrow. We can look at our Celtic stonework crosses throughout the graveyards. We can read the literature of our bards and poets. I am indebted to a writer, ThomasCahill — I think he is American — who claims in a book that we Celts or Irish saved civilisation from the worst, or darkest, excesses of the Middle Ages, and that we did this through the medium of art.
Therefore I believe that art is humanity’s creative expression and interpretation in a world made by God. Art in its most basic form is created by, and should be for, the common people, be it through the medium of song, storytelling, drama, language, the visual arts, sculpture, or painting and drawing. Indeed, in contemporary society, art is used on the walls of our various cities and towns to express what the people needed to say and, perhaps, were prohibited from saying.
Art should never be interpreted in its narrowest forms as a means of class division, or of division of any description. Equality should be the cornerstone in the thinking of all those charged with the responsibility of promoting arts as the means of addressing division and promoting diversity. Art, as we know it here, should reflect the ethos of the Good Friday Agreement. The Ulster-Scots tradition and the interplay and relationship between these two islands as reflected in that very rich culture of Scots Gaelic — song, Scots dancing, design of clothing — should all be respected and promoted.
We need to democratise arts. On all sides of the artistic process there needs to be access for the creators and also for the consumers at a community level. It should not be the prerogative of the affluent. We must recognise that art is a partnership that provides a forum for the expression of people’s most fundamental needs. It can be utilised to address issues that define the social, political and cultural needs of the community. I am reminded of an Italian film director, Armand Gatti, who came here some 20years ago to make a film which he thought would tell everyone in France and Italy what we were doing, what sort of a divided people we were. He called it ‘The Writing on the Wall’, and he showed the film in France, in Toulouse, with French subtitles. Then he showed the film in London, and people could not understand what we were saying, because we were speaking, I believe, a language that has been interwoven with various dialects, from Scots to the Irish language. And so, in London, ArmandGatti had to add English subtitles to a film in which young people from Derry and Belfast were speaking.
I am also reminded of my mother, who travelled quite extensively back and forth between Donegal and Scotland. She was a great fan of RobbieBurns. I always remember that she quoted or read extensively to us children from his poetry. The one that sticks in my mind is
"Wee, sleekit, cow’rin, timrous beastie".
I think that everyone knows that one. To me, all those things make up an interpretation of art. I am thinking of interpretation of the Féile an Phobail in West Belfast, which has been an artistic festival of tremendous international dimensions.
It has attracted thousands of visitors from all over the world in the past two years, proving that art can play a fundamental role in bringing people here to enjoy our rich and diverse culture, in promoting our economy and in being a tourist magnet.
As a society we need to do a number of things to promote and widen the interpretation of what art is. I think that to a degree — some Members have already mentioned this — art has been defined for us. Now we need to start to define it for ourselves. Art should never be about rich millionaires who come over here and buy our paintings, literature, even our buildings and export them somewhere in the world because they have the means to do so.
We need to start encouraging art by encouraging it in our children. We need to look at the wholeness of our children. Children are naturally creative. They are naturally conduits for the expression of art. We must begin at that fundamental level.
The Culture, Arts and Leisure Committee needs to promote and widen the interpretation of art, and we can do this by allowing art to influence us in all forms: art in schools; art in community schemes; art for the disabled; art for the ethnic and minority communities — we can learn a lot from the richness and the diversity of them all. We should look at art in our design and textile industry. I used to make Irish dance costumes when I was a member of a women’s co-operative. We embroidered very elaborate designs, most of them copied from the book of Kells. We learned that the knots, crosses, twists and designs that we used had an artistic meaning, often symbolising something close to nature — for example, the knot symbolised harvest time.
There has to be a radical overhaul of the various agencies charged with responsibility for promoting the arts. Art must be made more accessible to those communities who have struggled for years with little or no financial support, or even recognition. We need, once again, to promote and encourage all of our cultural festivals, our feiseanna and our films. Look at the success of a film made in Derry on a very, very low budget, ‘Dance Lexy Dance’. It is an amazing film which made it all the way to Los Angeles and the Academy awards.
This has been a valuable debate, and I hope that the Culture, Arts and Leisure Committee will address all the issues raised today. Go raibh maith agat.

Mr Norman Boyd: I want specifically to highlight the excellent work of the Northern Ireland Film Commission and provide some details of its role and function. The purpose of the Northern Ireland Film Commission is to develop the film industry and film culture in Northern Ireland. It was established in 1997 and provides assistance and information for film and television producers from across the world who are considering filming in Northern Ireland.
Northern Ireland has unique opportunities for the creative producer. Its position as a region of the United Kingdom offers producers access to UK sources of production finance, whether for feature films or for television drama. The role of the commission is to provide strategic leadership for the film sector by ensuring the best use of those public funds which are available for film development and production in Northern Ireland.
In addition, it is contracted by the Arts Council of Northern Ireland to provide advice on the distribution of National Lottery funds to film projects — currently around £700,000 per year. Benefits of the Northern Ireland Film Council’s work include medium-and long-term job creation, inward investment and tourism. It promotes Northern Ireland as a tourist destination, stimulates private-sector investment and builds confidence in Northern Ireland through new images across screens throughout the world.
The Northern Ireland Film Commission promotes an awareness of Northern Ireland locations, crews and facilities to producers nationally and internationally, and promotes films produced in Northern Ireland. It also supports the development and production of films in Northern Ireland and encourages private-sector investment in the industry. It offers development loans to producers intending to make feature films or television dramas in the region, and the fund offers producers loans towards the costs of developing a project.
The Northern Ireland Film Commission provides a comprehensive information service in print and digitally on all aspects of film in Northern Ireland and Europe.
It is recognised as the industry training body for Northern Ireland, and, as such, it ensures that the training needs of the industry in Northern Ireland are met and that producers engage local trainees when appropriate. Specialist short courses, training grants for freelance technicians, industry-recognised qualifications and support for trainees on productions are all part of the commission’s commitment to building on the existing creative and technical skills and talent base of the industry in Northern Ireland.
The commission’s training programme is supported by Skill Set, the UK national training organisation for broadcast, film and video, the Training and Employment Agency, and Ulster Television. In 1997, together with Ulster Television, in recognition of the success of its joint training programme, the commission received a regional training award and a national training award.
The commission also works in conjunction with BBC Northern Ireland, British Screen, Ulster Television, Channel 4, Belfast City Council, Londonderry City Council and the Arts Council of Northern Ireland on a range of schemes intended to develop the creative, technical and business skills essential to the growth of the industry in Northern Ireland. The film commission manages the premiere scheme, funded in partnership with Ulster Television, Belfast City Council and British Screen. Premiere offers an opportunity for Northern Ireland’s new film-making talent to make five short fiction films each year.
Northern Ireland has developed a reputation for innovative and imaginative approaches to cinema exhibition and media education. The commission promotes the development of cultural cinema and encourages the study of the moving image and convergent technologies here.
Northern Ireland is the home of the Cinemagic International Film Festival for Young People. This is a high-quality mix of entertainment and education for young people between the ages of six and 18.
Belfast is the home of one of the UK’s longest established art-house cinemas: the Queen’s Film Theatre. Northern Ireland continues to produce many fine actors and actresses, and long may that continue. I commend the work of the Northern Ireland Film Commission.
Finally, may I say a few words about amateur dramatics. This has been thriving in Northern Ireland, and, in fact, my own family has been involved in amateur dramatics. I thought it was particularly sad when the Arts Theatre closed its doors last year. We must ensure, as an Assembly, that no other theatres close due to a lack of funding.

Mr Ivan Davis: I will be very brief. I am very pleased at the way that this debate has taken place and at the number of speakers that have taken part. I am delighted to see the Minister here. I believe that as a result of the establishment of this new Department under a local Minister, the arts, leisure and sport will be very dominant in the years that lie ahead.
It is a well-known fact that Belfast suffered for nearly two centuries from having the image, if not the explicit reputation, of being the centre of obscurity in western Europe, and not without just cause, in relation to the arts. However, that has all changed. We are currently well served, perhaps better served, for poets, writers, painters, playwrights and musicians than any other area of a similar size in the world of art. Belfast City Council deserves credit for bringing arts to the fore, albeit in response to pressure from various areas and groups.
Those interested in art in other areas of the Province have now organised considerable lobbies to pressurise elected representatives for more funds for promotion of the arts. We all know that there are plenty of projects throughout the Province crying out for more funding and financial support.
We could take a lead from the cities of Glasgow and Edinburgh, which have been doing very well in recent years. These cities spend not only to promote the arts by raising the general level of appreciation but, more importantly, by creating new jobs and new industry in what is now established as the growth area of the national economy.
In conclusion, I do not believe that we can afford to miss the opportunity that now exists, and with the new Minister installed in the new Department, we can get on with promoting the arts.

Mr Michael McGimpsey: This has been a wide-ranging debate and one that has stimulated a number of people to speak. I am very grateful for the input from all parties around the Chamber.
The debate could perhaps have begun with what we mean by "culture" and what we mean by "arts" — "leisure" is well defined as "sporting activities" — since culture and arts are sometimes confused. The widest definition of culture is the values and rules that underpin society.
The motion is about arts in Northern Ireland, and I believe that that relates primarily to the performing arts, creative arts and community arts. Those are broken down into other facets: painting, sculpture, film, architecture, literature, dance, drama, music, poetry, literature, and so on. I will not go through the complete list.
The timing of this debate could not be more appropriate. Ours is a new Department and we have begun to create a strategy for the Department and, within the arts section of the Department, a strategy for arts that we call "Future Search", as previously mentioned. The main deliverer of financial support for arts in Northern Ireland is the Arts Council. A review of the Arts Council, which is now in the public domain, has just been published by ProfEveritt. It is called the ‘Opening up the arts — a strategy review for the Arts Council of Northern Ireland’. It is important that we look at those two pieces of work, which have yet to come to fruition because the final strategy has still to be produced. However, I expect that to happen sooner rather than later.
We recognise the importance of the arts, and we recognise the unfulfilled potential and the need to develop them. MrArthurDoherty referred to arts in terms to do with the quality of life, and I believe very strongly in that. This is an area that will enhance, reinforce and sustain the quality of life for our people by helping to build a better future for Northern Ireland through arts and creativity. It will also act as a catalyst for personal, social and economic development.
Someone spoke about value for money, and the arts give value for money. In terms of where art stands, the Myerscough Report — which came out in 1996 using data from 1993-94 — demonstrated that six years ago the arts sector had a turnover of £150million and supported up to 9,000 jobs. When one considers that that was six years ago, and thinks of all that has happened since then, one can see the economic potential that arts and culture have.
The arts can also be a catalyst for personal and social development that gives confidence to young people through participation, and they can express an image both within and outside Northern Ireland that can change perceptions about the Province. They are important among a whole range of Government activities and can help to attract inward investment and tourism.
It is the key element of the NorthernIreland economy and that is why it is so exciting. A number of points have been raised, and many of those have been earmarked for future research.
MrMcElduff raised the issue of arts in education, and that is one top-of-the-list key aim, in terms of future research. MrMcElduff played an important role by participating in the ‘Creativity in Education’ workshop. That workshop looked at how we could give our children the opportunity to realise and develop their creative potential — embedding creativity in the educational process. Prof KenRobinson, the United Kingdom’s leading authority on promoting creativity in education, will be helping us to develop action in this area.
MrMcCarthy referred to the creative industries. Again, we have enormous potential and talent in this area. Coincidentally, it may interest MrMcCarthy to know that, during the first period of devolution, the very first activity I undertook as Minister was to go to a Cinemagic function, and I was very impressed by the director, MissShonaMcCarthy. I did not realise that she was his niece, and I do not believe she volunteered the information. Even now that I know this, I can assure him it will not be a disadvantage to her. We have an innate talent among our young people in our creative industry, and that is something which we are looking to tap into. There are new technologies coming on board.
MrMcMenamin spoke about a cultural task force. We would not rule that out, and it is certainly in the melting pot. It is important to reflect that we have already a creative industries task group looking at film, Cinemagic and how we get involved in the new converging technologies, such as software and the Internet.
We also have the creative industries task force, which is a United Kingdom wide vehicle, and we are interacting with colleagues in England, Scotland and Wales. Again, that is another mechanism for delivering ideas, strategies and policies. The idea of a cultural task force can go into the melting pot. I am not sure how to respond in so far as producing yet another grouping to go with that.
Support for individual artists was mentioned, and again this is an important area. Over 1,000 people are employed in arts and crafts in the Province. That is part of the job creation and economic benefits we are deriving from an innate creativity and imagination in our population.
The issue of universal accessibility was raised by MrMcMenamin. He may be aware that we launched the Adapt programme recently. That aims to improve accessibility to the arts for those who suffer disability, by effectively auditing all arts and culture venues — whether they be museums, theatres, art galleries or heritage centres. There are approximately 300 venues for which the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure is responsible. That is another area which we are trying to move forward on. Once we complete the audit we are determined to take the next step which will be the implementation stage.
I have referred to the review of the role of the Arts Council, and that will be the main mechanism for delivery. A number of areas have come forward under that review. The Chairman of the Arts Council referred to the review as ‘bracing’, and it was certainly not a review that simply looked at what has gone before and endorsed it. It made a number of suggestions on various areas, including transparency, the involvement of district councils, resources, extending participation, and, in particular, the review of the community arts sector, as already mentioned. That is important when we talk about community arts and amateur drama, and the Everitt Report points out that some 20,000 people in Northern Ireland are involved in such activities. We looked at ways in which the Arts Council of Northern Ireland can support that area.
Resources of course are extremely limited. The Chairman of the Culture, Arts and Leisure Committee, Mr ONeill, referred to £65 million, but this is a global figure and includes funding for libraries, which take up roughly a third of the budget, and sport, for which we allow roughly £2·5million in Northern Ireland. Were it not for the National Lottery top-ups, we could not survive. We also have other areas such as Ordnance Survey, the Public Record Office and museums, all of which are funded through my Department. It boils down to the fact that funding for the arts in Northern Ireland stands at a grand total of £7 million. We add on to that National Lottery top-ups, which is why we can make progress.
If we were comparable with Scotland, we should look for an increase of around 40%. If we had the Great Britain average, we would receive a 16% increase. What we get through National Lottery funding is based on our percentage of the population, irrespective of need. It is recognised that when it comes to meeting our needs in Northern Ireland we are between 15% and 20% behind the rest of the UK, not least because we have suffered from 30 years of violence, and not least because we have one of the youngest populations, if not the youngest, in Europe. Our needs are greater, and our funding for the arts has been abysmal.
Mr Weir referred to the fact that all sections in the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure are "Cinderella" sections. Libraries come under our remit because they used to be part of the Department of Education. Every time there was a financial constraint on education, the Department cut not the schools, or the youth service — or at least not to the same extent — but the libraries.
The same thing affected sports, and Members can see that £2·5million for all sports in Northern Ireland is indicative of the sort of challenge we face. The sum of £7 million is abysmal funding. One of the ways forward is to see what is happening in other countries. We need only look south of the border to see what is happening in the Irish Republic and the money that is spent there on arts and culture. People there recognise the connection between economic development and cultural tourism. They recognise that they can provide potential employers with a workforce that is creative and imaginative by getting into the cultural and artistic side of society and, in particular, by bringing on young people.
It may be that our generation has lived too long to advance that theory now, but our young people have innate talent, and we have an opportunity to give them training and support to reinforce those natural talents so they can repay our society handsomely. We need only look around the world — take, for instance, the way in which creative industries have come on in places like Glasgow — to see the huge potential for economic development and job and wealth creation. If we look simply for value for money, we could not spend our money in any better way than this. It also channels the talents, energy, creativity and imagination of our young people down pathways such as the arts, cultural activity and sport, taking them away from other, more negative pursuits.
I have tried to cover as many of the points as I can. I know that I have not covered them all. I am grateful that so many points have been raised, and I shall do my best to address those on Monday when I will be here to take Ministers’ questions, and when I am next with the Committee. Culture, Arts and Leisure is a very exciting Department. I believe that I have the best job in the Executive, and I think other members of the Executive recognise that. The variety is here, the potential is here, and there is the ability to improve — to use Mr Doherty’s phrase, which I am very attached to — the quality of life of our people.

Private Finance Initiative Scheme (Antrim)

Mr David Ford: I have a very long saga to recount of the history of Antrim town centre. I hope it will be of interest not just to those of us who represent South Antrim. It certainly has implications right across Northern Ireland. I had hoped that my council colleagues, CllrMcClelland and CllrClyde, would have been in a position to contribute to this debate today, but perhaps you will keep me right from the Chair if necessary, Mr Deputy Speaker. The saga of this particular PFI Scheme involves two statutory agencies — the Transport Holding Company and the North Eastern Education and Library Board. It also involves what are now three different Departments of Government — Culture, Arts and Leisure, Regional Development and Finance and Personnel — and I am desperately hoping that at least one of them will manage to provide a Minister to respond to this debate in the near future. It is a rather complex issue which requires their attention.
As far back as 1984, when the Antrim area plan was developed, a site in the centre of the town was already identified for the development of a library and a bus station. It sits at the junction of Church Street and Railway Street in the very centre of the town. Part of it is now owned by the Transport Holding Company and part by the North Eastern Education and Library Board. It is an area of about an acre and occupies a prime town centre site. It is situated in the middle of the main street, with the high wall of the parish church on the other side. The fact that it lies empty restricts possible developments on either side, and it splits the town centre in two. It is having a hugely detrimental effect on the development of the town centre. That was the plan in 1984, but it was not until the autumn of 1990 that Ulsterbus announced plans to develop the site. Planning permission was granted in 1992 and an investment appraisal undertaken, but the black hole sat there.

Mr Norman Boyd: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I do not want to stop the debate, but do we have a quorum?
Members counted, and a quorum being present —

Mr David Ford: I am sure that no Member for South Antrim would wish to stop this debate.
In 1993 a series of negotiations took place about land swaps and about various plans for the site. Ulsterbus was supposed to be taking the lead in a joint scheme with the North Eastern Education and Library Board. I remember shortly after my election to Antrim Council in 1993 that it was already a topic for discussion in the technical services committee. There was a concern about the state of the site and the detrimental effect it was having on the town centre. There were further talks in 1994, and I believe that planning permission was granted for a scheme at that stage. In 1995 there was another investment appraisal, and there was to be another delay.
It was clear at that stage that the major problem was the Conservative Government’s economic policy. They refused to fund the necessary public infrastructure. I remember, as I am sure you do, Mr DeputySpeaker, a meeting with MrMoss, who was then briefly the Minister for the Environment. He came to Antrim Council in late 1995 and was questioned about what was happening on the Ulsterbus site, as we now refer to it. He said he would review the matter again. In 1996 a report arrived from the Minister. Now this was at the height of the Tory Party’s privatisation efforts and its enthusiasm for PFI so, according to MrMoss, the way was now open to proceed under PFI. It could not proceed any other way.
In the Chamber today we have heard some support for the concept of PFI and PPP. Four and a half years on, I have considerable doubts about their value since there has been no real progress, at least as far as the public is concerned. Of course, there has been much happening in the background.
The PFI procedure was supposed to have been implemented in early 1996 but it was after the change in Government, and long after the departure of MrMoss, that a briefing meeting was held in January1998. In March1998 three parties were invited to negotiate. Bids were submitted in July1998, although only from two parties, and they made their best and final offers in December 1998 — only three years after the Minister announced that we would be proceeding through PFI as the best and speediest way of implementing this scheme for the good of the people of Antrim.
By the spring of 1999 it was clear that all was not well. There were stories that the PFI would be terminated on grounds of cost. In May 1999 I was approached by an agent for one consortium and informed that it believed that PFI was not being properly implemented in this respect. I was told, and I have no reason to doubt it, that there was a unilateral demand for reduction in the price of the scheme. That was in contravention of the scheme drawn up by the Government as to how PFI should be implemented. I was shown a copy of the guidelines. The penultimate saga is described as "final negotiation over the proposals". It has also been described, perhaps more accurately, as "a bit of a haggle over the details of the scheme". Yet it appeared, and my understanding is, that this was driven by the Department of Finance and Personnel. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s response. The haggling over the details was ignored, and there was simply to be a unilateral decision to require a price reduction, or nothing would happen.
I contacted PaulMurphy and LordDubs, the Ministers then responsible for the Department of Finance and Personnel and the Department of Environment. I also obtained the support of Antrim Council in June1999. That particular bidder met the council in the summer of 1999 and showed models and plans for what the scheme might have entailed. By September LordDubs advised the council that a meeting was being arranged with both bidders. However, it took another letter, and it was in October 1999, following a further intervention by LordDubs, before the two bidders were invited to submit their revised bids. Further bids were then submitted in November 1999 — we are now nearing 4years from the time that the PFI scheme was introduced as a speedy way of resolving the problem. By February this year, the company that had first contacted me told me that it was now being recommended as the preferred bidder.
However, there was a further wrangle about incurring costs in advance of final approval. It appeared that the company was being asked to undertake further work before it was given the full approval, and it would be at certain financial risk in so doing. Given the wrangles that had gone on over many years and the difficulties it had, I find it difficult to suggest that the company should have been anything other than cautious in its approach in dealing with that aspect. I understand that in February this year, and for four months since, the company has been told that news is expected soon, every time it has asked. Soon means many things. Those of us who have been through the entire negotiations that led up to Good Friday in 1998 should, perhaps, be cautious of criticising others. Soon for something that was supposed to have been finalised at least a year ago is not very soon.
I hope I have managed to give a reasonably accurate picture of this particular project and all the traumas it has been through, although I have shorn off an awful lot of detail. I felt it was necessary to do it for two main reasons. First, I wanted to highlight the problems that have been caused to Antrim and its people by the delay in this scheme. A crucial town centre scheme has moved nowhere for five years, despite constant allegations that this is the speediest way of dealing with it. Secondly, it raises many and detailed questions about the PFI process. I am glad that the Minister of Finance is now here to respond to my concerns, and no doubt the Minister for Regional Development will be in a position to wink across the Chamber at him as well.
I have some philosophical concerns with PFI. I have made this clear to those with whom I have been talking, who are engaged in the PFI process. There are major problems in some schemes across the water. In hospitals and schools, for example, the management of a facility appears at times to come extraordinarily close to issues of clinical judgement or professional competence of teaching staff.
There are major problems in the implementation of PFI schemes in that respect. There is also the issue that at times, despite the cost of Government borrowing’s being lower than that in the private sector, PFI schemes have added to the cost rather than decreased it. This should have been the ideal scheme for PFI. It was a simple scheme to manage and build a library, a small bus facility, some shops and some residential accommodation; there were no major complications of professional competence, no major difficulties in terms of who was responsible for which aspects of the work. It was easy to divide between the various agencies and the private-sector bidder.
In this case the private sector produced better plans than those that were originally produced by the Transport Holding Company and the North Eastern Education and Library Board. There is no doubt that for a commercial town-centre site, the commercial impetus of a private-sector bidder has added additional shopping facilities and accommodation and has produced a better plan. However, a better plan is no use to the people of Antrim if something does not appear on the ground. Even with these better plans, this saga has been going on for over four years, with no sign of any movement. The Department of the Environment, Transport and Regions in England, or Great Britain, or wherever its precise remit covers, has produced a report suggesting that PFI is not the appropriate way to proceed for schemes of less than £10million.
It seems to be parallel with what some of us would call compulsory tendering in councils. Because PFI is not the right way to proceed, there is this huge issue of small bodies or small schemes being subject to massive additional costs and over-administration. That appears to be borne out in every case by this scheme. PFI is being forced upon us by the initial policy decisions of the Conservative party, which have been implemented without change by the new Labour Government, and that has been detrimental to us all.
As a town, Antrim currently has major development opportunities. It recently submitted an application for out-of-town retailing which has been rejected but which gives the town centre a major opportunity to develop. There are possibilities of new housing, which you and I, Mr Deputy Speaker, remember from our rows with the planners on the issue of the redundant Massereene Hospital site’s being used for commercial development sitting, as it does, in a town- centre location. All these things are going ahead, and yet the scheme, which is supposed to have been in the public sector for almost 16years as a plan to move on, is now lost in the ether, and nothing is happening. We talked about public transport earlier, and here is a scheme that aims to provide the facilities to bring quality public transport into the town centre for the benefit of those who are taking their custom to the shops there, yet nothing has been done about it. This gap is likely to continue, with no sign of movement. Most other things are going ahead, while we sit with an empty site, blocking the development from one end of the main street to the other and also blocking the view of any possible development up Railway Street towards the hospital site.
In conclusion, I hope that at the end of this debate the Minister will be able to tell us two things; first, can he explain to the people of Antrim what is happening to the Ulsterbus site, and how we will get the public transport and library facility? Unfortunately the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure has left, so he cannot hear my praise for the Library Service about which, I am sure, he would have been pleased. Secondly, I would like the Minister to tell us how his Department is going to deal with such a dilemma in the future. This saga illustrates the past failures of PFI under the Department of Finance and Personnel to produce any real benefits for the people of Antrim and the people of Northern Ireland, even in a scheme as simple as this.

Rev William McCrea: I can understand the genuine frustration that the people of Antrim are currently suffering as a result of the inactivity of those who have the responsibility of ensuring that this building is erected in Antrim. The scheme is an imaginative one, the plans are excellent, and the people of Antrim would be well served if it were fully built and operational. The problem lies in getting it from the initial planning stage to full planning stage and then actually building it. I understand the Members for the area raising the issue in the Chamber, and I would like to apologise for my Colleague MrClyde who is at the funeral of a close friend and is unable to join us in the debate. For a long time elected representatives in Antrim, including my colleagues, Cllrs Clyde, Dunlop and McClay and others, have fought valiantly to make representations about this delayed scheme. It has a long history, but we cannot go back, and, we cannot change that. I trust that we can give an impetus to the scheme to ensure that it moves on.
Six years ago the North Eastern Education and Library Board entered into deep and genuine discussions about pooling its land with the land which was under the control of the Transport Holding Company. They decided together on an imaginative scheme which would permit the Transport Holding Company to take full responsibility for building the property. It was agreed that the Education and Library Board would repay a sum of between £50,000 and £60,000 each year for five years until its part of the scheme was paid off. That was not only an imaginative scheme; it was the proper initiative to take and the best way forward. The two schemes were coming together with the pooling of land and resources, and in fiveyears the board should have owned the library. They felt that it was the best way in which to handle public funds, and I certainly agreed with their approach.
However, the relevant Departments said that the scheme could not proceed if the board accepted rent under the PFI directive, a directive that Government policy dictated. Even though the board had spent a considerable amount of finance on legal and consultative fees, and the PFI procedure would delay the project for a considerable time, they were told by the Department that it had to be done in this way. The board and the Holding Company went through all the procedures, involving an outline business plan, legal advisers, consultants and advertising, and then they were told to enter into negotiations with bidders, making a full business case.
The offers finally came in but were unacceptable on two counts. First, the project was now unaffordable and, secondly, the bid fell outside the public-sector comparators. The board and the Transport Holding Company asked if it was possible to go through the normal procurement route, but they were told that they must re-open negotiations with the private developers. So, once again, it went back into the melting pot of negotiations.
An amended copy of the final business case was eventually presented, and a bid was both acceptable and affordable to those who were involved in the negotiations. The board and the Transport Holding Company await the final approval before matters can proceed.
However, that that is not the end of the story. It will take time to reach the final planning stage and then it will take another year for the actual building. The people of Antrim could be two years away from getting their bus station and library and the shops that are to be included in the development. The development itself is excellent, and we should do everything in our power to encourage it. It will certainly bring quality, public transport, and quality shops into the centre of Antrim. It will help to regenerate the town and ensure it is kept very much alive and busy by bringing people right into its very heart.
That is one of the attractive things. It is bringing the people, using the public transport we talked about this morning, into the very heart of the town. That is what we want to see, to encourage the development and expansion of Antrim, with its heart being very much alive and a vibrant economic entity.
The question remains: why the delay? I am led to believe that the Ministers concerned have the final papers on their desks now. I ask them to look very quickly at those papers. The Minister for Regional Development and the Minister of Finance and Personnel are sitting here now. I trust that they will both ensure that the papers on their desks are approved. There is anxiety among those involved that something actually be done. It should be done.
This scheme probably falls outside the criteria for PFI. I am told that the scheme is too small, at just over £1million, for PFI investors to find it attractive. There were no groups of people jumping up and down to take on this particular scheme. Even in the education sector, schools are being lumped together to try and constitute schemes that are appropriate for PFI. The route that has been taken has created an unnecessary delay. I ask the Ministers and Departments concerned to ensure that there is no further delay. They should get it off their desks, allow this money to be spent in the centre of Antrim and ensure that the people of Antrim are well served with an up-to-date library and an up-to-date, quality public transport system. I support Mr Ford, and I trust success will be forthcoming through continued representations.

Mr Mark Durkan: I thank both Members for their contributions. I apologise to Mr Ford for my not being in the Chamber for his opening remarks. They were available to me through the technology that we have on the premises, so all I missed was whatever was said while I was coming down the stairs.

Mr David Ford: That was the important bit.

Mr Mark Durkan: Lucky I missed it then. I will write to the Member when I read it in Hansard. A variety of points were made and many questions were raised about the whole issue of PFI and PPP, and there were also particular points relating to this specific project. I will deal with the general points first.
Public/private partnerships allow the expertise and methods of the private sector to be deployed in the public sector. That has the potential to bring greater efficiency, along with a focus on achieving long term value for money over the duration of a project, which can be 20 years or more. The Private Finance Initiative (PFI) is a form of public/private partnership where the private sector is involved as a provider of capital assets as well as services. PFI projects frequently involve construction or renovation of buildings, as is the case with the proposed bus station, library and retail units in Antrim.
One of my most important roles as Minister of Finance and Personnel is to ensure that we obtain the maximum benefit and value for money from the resources available. This calls for a rigorous, realistic approach to questions of how public services can best be delivered. The need for this is re-inforced by the concerns that are continually being raised by Members over the level of resources available for particular services. When taken together, these concerns cover just about every service. This point was brought home, certainly to me, during the recent debate on the 2000/2001 Main Estimates and was emphasised again today during the debate on public transport.
Against this background we need to explore, and be ready to exploit fully, any method of delivering services that offers potential for improvement over the more traditional ways of procuring new assets in the public sector. I hardly need to remind Members that these traditional methods are not always fault-free, with cost overruns and delays in construction occurring perhaps too often. With a PFI project it is likely that such risks will be wholly or substantially transferred to the private sector, which should be better able to manage them.
There are great challenges confronting us with the improvements that we wish to see in education, health, transport, housing and many other public services. We have also inherited a backlog of maintenance work. In facing these challenges we cannot afford to ignore what the private sector has to offer by way of potentially better solutions and fresh thinking. To do so would be to do a disservice to the people. Indeed, we would find ourselves as a minority of one because other countries and territories throughout Europe and the world have increasingly looked to the private sector for help with similar problems. I am sure that this is not a distinction that we would want to bring on ourselves.
Northern Ireland has so far had a reasonably good record of successful PFI projects, two of which have this month won an award or been highly commended nationally. So far, deals worth some £53million in estimated capital value have been signed across a wide range of services including information technology, water and sewerage, education and health. A further £560million worth of deals are at various stages of completion on public transport, education and health, and there may be potential for much more such funding.
Both DrMcCrea and MrFord suggested that schemes under £10million were not suitable for PFI. The test for PFI schemes is value for money. The size of the scheme is one factor, but it is not the only consideration. Many smaller successful schemes have been implemented here in Northern Ireland and elsewhere. The value of the scheme that was referred to, contrary to some of the figures that were suggested, is really around £3million. However, public/private partnerships and PFI are not panaceas. There are limitations as well as opportunities. We need to identify the potential opportunities in order to decide which solution will work best in particular circumstances. The key test, as I have said, is value for money. My Department works very closely with other Departments in helping to analyse business proposals.
The deals under public/private partnerships and PFI are generally more complex than traditional methods of procurement, and therefore they do take more time. This is only to be expected given the length of time for which these deals have to run, and the number of services which may be involved. Both public and private sectors have been on a learning curve. I hope that this is now behind us and that these lessons will help us. We should now be in a better position to identify suitable new projects and to speed up the processes in the future. Departments have developed their own expertise, and they also have available to them a competitive field of experienced private-sector consultants to help take projects forward.
For more innovative and complex projects, Departments will also be able to call upon the services of the newly established Partnerships UK. This organisation has taken over from the Treasury taskforce and has the sole mission of helping the public sector with PPP and PFI deals. In addition, I will be looking to see if there are any ways in which my Department can be of further help in supporting PPP and PFI projects.
In relation to questions raised specifically about the Antrim project, I can well understand the frustration felt by MrFord and expressed by the MrMcCrea at the length of time that it has taken to reach a conclusion on the Antrim bus station and library project. As I said at the outset, the prime focus of my Department throughout the process has been, and will remain, on obtaining value for money. That is the Department’s job.
Contrary to some of the impressions given, the Department of Finance and Personnel has not been the source of the ongoing lengthy delay throughout the life of this project. The Department of Finance has had to respond to the papers that it received and relay its consideration back to the relevant Department. The relevant Department has, in turn, had its work to do in relation to the PFI procedures. It would have had to do further work anyway for economic appraisal purposes had it been going down the traditional procurement route. People should be careful not to misrepresent the Department of Finance and Personnel’s contribution to this exercise. I am prepared to sit down with the Member and take him through my Department’s calendar of involvement. It will be clear that the Department of Finance and Personnel did not hold up progress on the project. It has achieved reasonably quick turnarounds in its responses to, and considerations of, this particular project.
Where the search for value for money indicates that a PPP or PFI solution will give better value for money than traditional procurement, then my Department will quite rightly seek to ensure that a PPP or PFI solution is pursued. As the Antrim case has evolved, it has become increasingly clear that the PFI option is likely to provide the better value that we are seeking if limited funds are to be used to best advantage. I understand that a revised business case, incorporating all the necessary information, is now being finalised by the Department for Regional Development. My Department expects to receive this in the next few days, and I hope that it may be possible to make an announcement soon.
The sitting was suspended at 5.43 pm.
On resuming (Madam Deputy Speaker [Ms Morrice] in the Chair) —

Fire Service: Award

Ms Jane Morrice: I have received notice from the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety that a statement is to be made on the Fire Service. I call the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety.

Ms Bairbre de Brún: A LeasCheann Comhairle. Sula ndéanaim an ráiteas ba mhaith liom an deis seo a ghlacadh le leithscéal a thabhairt do na Teachtaí cionnas gurbh éigean leagan úr Gaeilge den ráiteas a sholáthar i mbeagán ama. Bhí gá leis seo le rudaí a bhí mí-chruinn sa bhunleagan a cheartú.
Before making my statement I would like to apologise to Members for the fact that the Irish version had to be replaced at short notice. This was necessary to correct inaccuracies.
Le do chead, a LeasCheann Comhairle, déanfaidh mé an ráiteas anois.
Is mian liom faisnéis a thabhairt do Theachtaí den Tionól Reachtach faoi na socruithe atá á ndéanamh le honóir a thabhairt don tSeirbhís Dóiteáin as an tseirbhís as cuimse a rinne siad le triocha bliain anuas.
Buailfidh an t-Údarás Dóiteáin bonn a bhronnfar ar gach trodaí dóiteáin a bhfuil ar a laghad trí bliana de sheirbhís leanúnach le dea-iompar curtha isteach aige/aici idir na blianta 1969 agus 2000. Bronnfar meadáille ar fhoireann tacaíochta na briogáide a bhfuil cúig bliana seirbhíse acu le linn an achair seo.
Beidh an chéad bhronnadh sa Halla Mhór, Foirgnimh na Parlaiminte, níos moille sa samhradh nuair a bhéarfas mé na chéad duaiseanna do roinnt trodaithe dóiteáin agus do roinnt de fhoireann tacaíochta na briogáide.
Obair an-chontúirteach í an múchadh dóiteáin agus cúis mhór bróin é gur gortaíodh an iomad trodaí dóiteáin agus iad i mbun a gcuid oibre agus go bhfuair cuid acu bás ag cosaint beatha agus sealúchas an phobail. Murach calmacht agus éifeacht ár gcuid trodaithe dóiteáin agus cuidiú lucht tacaíochta na briogáide, bheadh na mílte marbh atá beo inniu. Tá mé cinnte go mbeidh iomlán na dTeachtaí ar aon intinn liom go bhfuil bronnadh na mbonn agus na meadáillí seo tuillte go maith mar chomhartha aitheantais as an obair rí-thábhachtach seo.
I wish to advise Members of the arrangements being made to pay tribute to the exceptional service of the Fire Service over the last thirty years. The Fire Authority will strike a medal that will be awarded to all fire fighters having at least three years’ continual service with good conduct; this includes service between 1969 and 2000. Other brigade staff with five years’ service, which includes service within this period, will be presented with a medallion.
The first award ceremony will take place in the Great Hall, Parliament Buildings, later in the summer, when I will present the first awards to a number of firefighters and brigade support staff. Fire-fighting is very dangerous work, and it is to be regretted that many firefighters have been injured, and a number have lost their lives while protecting the public and trying to save property. Many people owe their lives to the courage and skill of our firefighters and the important contribution of brigade support staff. I am sure that all Members will agree with me that the award of these medals and medallions is well-deserved recognition for this vital work.

Ms Patricia Lewsley: I commend the Minister for recognising the work of the Northern Ireland Fire Brigade by awarding this medal. It is most appropriate given the low morale over recent months and the fact that over the last 30years the Fire Service has provided an excellent service and shown a commitment to the community throughout the troubles, sometimes putting their own lives at risk. Would the Minister agree that given that public safety is at the core of this issue, there is a need to redress the balance to bring the local fire brigade numbers into line with the services in the rest of the UK? Considering the size and the population of Northern Ireland, it would also be beneficial if the Fire Service were to receive a significant increase in funding to enable it to increase its recruitment programme to provide adequate coverage in all areas in the North of Ireland.

Ms Bairbre de Brún: I welcome the Member’s tributes for the Fire Service. It is to be understood that the fire brigade here is a labour-intensive organisation with over 900whole-time and over 900 part-time firefighters. The target establishment for the whole-time firefighters is 919 personnel, 899 of whom are in post, leaving a shortfall of 20. The target establishment for part-time firefighters is 980, and 917 are in post which is a shortfall of 63. Those are comprehensive numbers in terms of staffing levels here. Following the comprehensive spending review in 1999, additional moneys were allocated to the Fire Service. The moratorium on recruitment was, therefore, able to be lifted. Twenty-five additional firefighters were recruited in August1999, and a further 25recruits had their passing-out parade only last week. The fire authority is experiencing difficulty in recruiting part-time firefighters, but its preference is to recruit part-time firefighters on a 24-hour call-out basis.
In terms of the question the Member asked about money and investment, the Fire Authority baseline budget allocation has risen, and this is significant. It has risen from £43·7million in 1998/99 to £51·4million for 2000/01. An additional £4·9million was allocated last year, which is an increase of £8·5million in real terms. The £51·4million allocation for this year represents an increase of £2·9million over the 1999/00 allocation, representing a 3% increase in real terms.
We have also seen modernisation and improvement in the standard of fire services, which is being pursued through the development and efficient maintenance of a fire brigade fleet and fire-fighting equipment. The comparative cost of fire services in England for 1999/00 was £30,024, in Wales it was £32,055 and here it was £26,654, so there are significant comparisons.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: Of course, it does not take a statement from an IRA/Sinn Féin Minister to get Members on this side of the House to congratulate the Fire Service for their sterling work in preserving property, life and limb from fire and danger in this society over recent decades. Can the Minister confirm to the House how many fires the Fire Service has had to attend and put out as a result of Provisional IRA bombs? What has been the cost to the Fire Service in terms of manpower and resources in dealing with such bomb attacks and tackling fires caused by terrorism in NorthernIreland?
Did the Minister, when meeting the Fire Service, apologise to it for the years of bomb attacks that placed the lives of firemen in jeopardy because of the activities of members of her party? Has she called on her community to cease from stoning and attacking firemen and stopping them from doing their duty? Should the Minister not be embarrassed by coming to this House and announcing an award to a Fire Service that her party tried to expunge from existence in Northern Ireland?

Ms Bairbre de Brún: It is not possible to disaggregate those fires and other incidents that the Fire Service has attended over the last 30 years which specifically emanated from the conflict or from any section of the community from those which occurred for other reasons. We can all recite specific incidents which occurred in the course of the conflict over the past 30 years and engage in pointing the finger of blame. I had hoped that today would not be about political point-scoring. That is certainly not my intention, and I hope that Members will not wish to engage in that either. Today we give due recognition to the Fire Service’s labour for all sections of the community throughout the period, often at great personal risk to its members.

Mr Sean Neeson: I sincerely welcome the Minister’s statement. The awards are long overdue, given the Fire Service’s bravery over the years of the troubles. Even now its members are being attacked on the streets by all sides. This is not the time for making political statements. Rather we should be thankful for this announcement.
I ask the Minister to give serious consideration to reviewing existing Fire Service provision throughout Northern Ireland, bearing in mind that, in recent times, there has been a significant population growth in a number of areas which still only have part-time firemen and facilities. The time has now come for full-time Fire Service provision to be made in these areas.

Ms Bairbre de Brún: I thank the Member for his kind words which I shall ensure are passed on to the Fire Service. It is fitting today that we give recognition to the Fire Service. We all wish it well in the work that it is carrying out today, just as we wish those well who have carried out such work over the past 30 years.
I have given some details of significant investment in existing provision. I should be happy to write to the Member if he wishes to raise specific areas with me where it is felt that existing provision should be altered.

Mr John Kelly: Thank you, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I too welcome the Minister’s statement and concur with those who have pointed out that this is not an occasion for political point-scoring. We have met members of the Fire Service Union and, indeed, the Fire Authority itself on several occasions, and those meetings were extremely amicable.
In the health authority we have spoken about the integration of the Fire Service and the Ambulance Service. Would the Minister like to comment on that? Does the Minister recognise the need for North/South co-operation between the fire brigades? Have any formal arrangements been put in place for this?

Ms Bairbre de Brún: There is already good co-operation between the Fire Service and the Ambulance Service in training and communications. The inclusion of responsibility for fire and ambulance services under a single Department will, of course, now provide greater opportunities for increased co-operation and efficiency, including joint training and the sharing of premises for vehicles. I also expected it to lead to the development of a common communications infrastructure and joint approaches to the provision of information to the public about access to public safety.
With regard to North/South co-operation, the Fire Service maintains a good working relationship with brigades in the South. There is a formal arrangement with Donegal County Council in which the Fire Service provides fire and emergency cover for East Donegal. The cost of doing so is a retainer of £3,500 per annum and a charge of £195.50 per appliance per call out. Cross-border protocols exist between local fire stations also in terms of responding to emergencies. Contacts have been established with the Dublin Fire Brigade for joint training initiatives and for considering questions of, for example, advanced technology. There is ongoing co-operation therefore. As part of their fleet replacement programme, smaller fire brigades in the South purchase some of the Fire Service’s older appliances that have become surplus to requirements.

Mr Ivan Davis: I welcome the announcement of the award to the Fire Service. Does the Minister intend to give posthumous awards? I believe that the first person who died as a result of a bomb explosion was MrWesleyOrr from Lisburn.

Ms Bairbre de Brún: We are talking about bringing forward proposals that have been under consideration for some time in terms of the recognition for firefighters. The type of award that was to be brought forward had been discussed between members of the Fire Service Past Members’ Association and previous Ministers with responsibility for the Fire Service. I have not yet given any consideration to further awards, or other forms of awards. I think we need to mark quite clearly our regret that nine firefighters lost their lives, and that hundreds of firefighters were injured in the last 30years. Again, I have to say that it is not possible to disaggregate the specific causes and the specific contexts in which those occurred. It is a matter of regret to us all that firefighters lose their lives defending our population, and we should give them every recognition for the service they have given.

Mr Tommy Gallagher: I welcome the Minister’s statement and the recognition of the invaluable service given by the personnel in the Fire Service. Will the Minister include the families of those who have lost their lives at the awards ceremonies? At the first gathering, which will probably be the main focus of attention, does she intend to have a geographical spread of people from all of the fire stations throughout Northern Ireland present?

Ms Bairbre de Brún: I thank the Member for the questions. He raises very important points. The specific details have not yet been laid out, and I will certainly bear in mind the points he has made.

Ms Sue Ramsey: Go raibh maith agat, Madam Deputy Chair. I also welcome the Minister’s statement, and I think an award to the Fire Service is long overdue. I have a couple of questions.
Can the Minister inform us of the total number of house fires that have taken place over the last two years? Will she work with the Minister for Social Development to ensure that all public and private sector housing will be fitted with smoke alarms as a matter of urgency to reduce the number of senseless deaths?

Ms Bairbre de Brún: I fully support the points the Member made in her question about the need for smoke alarms. I am sure she will agree that the Fire Service has recently undertaken significant initiatives to ensure that smoke alarms are not only fitted but tested regularly. There has been some success in this, and I want to pay tribute to it for this. I should certainly be quite happy not only when it is necessary but when we wish to see co-operation between different Departments to ensure that it is possible. I shall write to the Member with a specific answer.

Mr Duncan Dalton: I wish to welcome the statement from the Minister today and make it known to the House that some tribute should be paid to Mr Harry Martin, the secretary of the Retired Firefighters’ Association, who has steadfastly campaigned for this medal for the past five years. It is through Mr Martin’s sterling work that this has been brought to people’s attention. I approached Mr Martin some time ago to become involved in trying to promote this issue as well, and the Minister will be aware of this from some of the correspondence on the file. I am glad to hear that this is going to happen, for the Fire Service deserves to be recognised for the work it has done for the entire community. The medal will go some way towards recognising the service that has been given by the Fire Service to all members of the community, from whatever side. I welcome this statement today.

Ms Bairbre de Brún: I concur absolutely. I previously made reference to the Retired Firefighters’ Association, but not specifically to MrHarryMartin, and I welcome the opportunity to do so now. His work in bringing this to the attention of the Ministers responsible for the Fire Service has been commendable. I am glad — in fact, honoured — to have been given the opportunity to take this work forward.

Mr Mervyn Carrick: I am honoured to welcome the tribute to firefighters’ courage over the last 30 years in particular. I should like the Minister to comment on her reply to a question when she said that it was a source of regret that nine firefighters had lost their lives as a result of the troubles. Will she now go further and lend credibility to her statement by condemning the terrorists for their actions that led to those deaths?

Ms Bairbre de Brún: I must point out to the Member that I did not say that. I pointed out that nine firefighters had lost their lives over the last 30 years. It is not possible to disaggregate figures into those who lost their lives in the conflict and those who lost their lives fighting fires in other circumstances. I have therefore stated clearly that I note not only that firefighters have lost their lives, but that hundreds of others have been injured fighting fires. It is not for the Department to try to disaggregate the causes of those fires. My wish today is to pay tribute to the firefighters’ service, and it is a source of regret to me that firefighters have been injured or lost their lives in carrying out this tremendous work.

Mr Ivan Davis: I can assure the Minister that Mr Wesley Orr was killed by a bomb explosion in Belfast. It should not be too hard to find that out from the Department.

Mr Nigel Dodds: I join with all those who have welcomed this long-overdue award for those who have served in the Fire Service. We all agree on the tremendous, sterling work that they have done, especially in the difficult circumstances of the last 30 years.
I would like to question the Minister further about some of the statements that she has made. Surely it must be possible to have these figures disaggregated. Whether or not it is possible, she may not wish to do it now, but it must surely be possible to have figures supplied on who was responsible for arson and bomb attacks over the years. At the very least, the Chief Constable issues certificates on many of these attacks, so the information will be on record.
Further to the previous question, instead of obscuring the issue of who was responsible for particular deaths, will the Minister take the opportunity now — regardless of which terrorist organisation was responsible — not to waffle or be ambiguous but to condemn clearly those terrorist outrages and make her position absolutely clear?
It is also time for the Minister, instead of coming here and paying tribute to the Fire Service, which is incumbent on all of us, to take the opportunity to pay tribute to the other emergency services, notably the police and the Army, instead of condoning the murder and maiming of their officers and soldiers.

Ms Bairbre de Brún: While I have said that it has not been possible to disaggregate figures, I am in no way taking away from the fact that at the very beginning of my statement I made it very clear that I wish to advise Members of the arrangements which are being made to pay tribute to the exceptional service of the Fire Service over the last 30years. The context in which I made that statement is therefore very clear, as was the context in which those firefighters carried out their work over the last 30years. I have, however, no intention of being diverted from what today is about. The suffering which all sections of the community have endured over the past 30years, as a result of the conflict, is a matter for regret. Firefighters suffered too, and I regret that and I recognise that. [Interruption]

Ms Jane Morrice: Order. The Minister has a right to be heard.

Ms Bairbre de Brún: I feel very strongly that on a day when we have come to pay tribute to the firefighters we should focus on applauding the Fire Service for its service to the community rather than score political points or engage in pointing the finger of blame for the past 30years of conflict.

Mr Maurice Morrow: I have listened to what the Minister has to say, and I would like to start by saying that this recognition of the Fire Service is long overdue. It is something, regrettably, that has come about because of pressure from, and lobbying by, the Fire Service and others. I also concur with what MrDalton said about HarryMartin. He is the gentleman who pioneered this and spearheaded the attack, as it were, on the Departments to bring this recognition about.
However, the statement that the Minister has delivered here this evening has a hollow ring to it. The fact that she deliberately sidesteps this and is not prepared to condemn terrorists who caused the death of nine firemen — [Interruption]

Ms Jane Morrice: Order. The Member should ask a question and not make a statement.

Mr Maurice Morrow: It should be a very simple task for the Minister to find out how the nine members who were killed lost their lives. What were the circumstances and who caused their deaths? Could we have less waffle and more direct answers please.

Ms Bairbre de Brún: I feel that I have dealt with these points again and again. I do applaud the work that HarryMartin has done. I do recognise that this question of recognition for firefighters has been under consideration for some time, and I am very glad to have been able to bring this forward today. It is not possible for me to give the circumstances, in all cases, of those who have been killed or injured over the last 30years.

Mr Roy Beggs: I welcome the announcement of the medals for the good service of the fire officers over the years. Rather than just give out medals, however, will the Minister acknowledge that the Fire Service in Northern Ireland receives less, per thousand of population, than other regions of the United Kingdom? Will she also accept that underfunding can mean that it takes longer to deal with emergencies and that can result in the loss of lives?

Ms Bairbre de Brún: My view is that we compare well in terms of investment here. The Fire Authority has a baseline budget allocation that has risen from £43·7million in 1998/99 to £51·4million in 2000/01. An additional £4·9million was allocated last year, an increase of 8·5% in real terms. On this year’s resources, £51·4million represents an increase of £2·9million over the 1999/00 allocation, a real terms increase of 3·6%.
The Fire Service needs to be efficient and effective — public safety depends on that. I am committed to maintaining and improving our Fire Service, but we should not underestimate the significant resources that are available or the fact that we compare reasonably favourably in terms of those resources.

Mr Paul Berry: I would like to commend and salute the Fire Brigade for the tremendous work and dedication with which it has served Northern Ireland over the last thirty years. I must say that we have not received answers on this side of the House. Can the Minister confirm how many firemen, over these past 30years, have been murdered due to IRA/SinnFéin activity? Is it possible for the Minister of SinnFéin/IRA to confirm to the House that she condemns the work of the IRA over the past 30years? When is she going to condemn the work of SinnFéin/IRA? This is rank hypocrisy on her part.

Ms Bairbre de Brún: I have dealt with both these questions.

Rev William McCrea: I also congratulate the members of the Fire Service; they have shown courage and determination in protecting the lives of innocent, law-abiding people throughout the Province. Lip-service to this is something that the firefighters do not really appreciate. Without looking deeper into the figures that have been mentioned today, it is clear that nine persons died over the years of murder and mayhem. It would be easy for any Minister to find out exactly who those persons were and exactly how they died at the hands of terrorism.
Does she agree that the courage of these firefighters is in sharp contrast to the cowardice of the IRA men who murdered them?

Ms Bairbre de Brún: I have saluted the courage of the firefighters, and I salute them again. I have said that I will not engage in political point scoring, and I will not do so now.

Mrs Eileen Bell: The message from the Minister is that she recognises and acknowledges the work of the firefighters over the years, and I am very pleased to have heard it. Can the Minister assure me that the investment and the reorganisation mentioned in the statement will come about as quickly as possible?
I have had many meetings with local firefighters as a result of the dispute that was recently solved, and there is no talk of who did what or when. People are talking about setting up a good fire fighting service that is recognised by, and has the confidence of, everyone. I welcome this as a step towards achieving that.

Ms Bairbre de Brún: Certainly I will ensure that the necessary investment is made available and that there is no delay. I will carefully consider any recommendations that come forward for improvement, but I would point again to the significant investment that is there at present.

Equality Commission

Ms Jane Morrice: We move now to the Equality Commission motion. The Business Committee has allocated two hours for this debate. Given the number of Members wishing to speak, I have decided to allow the mover of the motion up to 15 minutes, and a further 15 minutes will be available for the winding-up speech. All other Members should limit their speeches to eight minutes. This will be reviewed during the course of the debate.

Mr Gregory Campbell: I beg to move
That this Assembly notes the publication by the Equality Commission of their tenth annual monitoring report, criticises the worsening under-representation of the Protestant community, particularly in the public sector, and calls upon the Equality Commission to address this problem as a matter of urgency.
It is more than 22 years since the first publication by what was then the Fair Employment Agency on the subject of fair employment. Many other publications and reports have followed. There have been many references in all of those publications to the fact that Roman Catholic males are twice as likely to be unemployed as Protestant males. This simplistic cliché has underpinned almost all Government legislation since 1978. There has never been any attempt to accept that, at the outset of Northern Ireland’s troubled existence, the leaders of Roman Catholic opinion in Northern Ireland called for Catholics not to take positions in the Civil Service, the largest single employer in the country. It was gross hypocrisy then, almost fifty years later, for that same community to complain about not getting the jobs it had previously advocated not taking up.
Since the violence erupted in 1969 there has been a huge increase in security-related employment, and because of IRA intimidation there has been a low uptake from Roman Catholics in that sector. Unfortunately, very little reference is made in successive fair employment reports to these uncomfortable but factual positions. At the outset others and I were very critical of those early reports in that they excluded any reference to the discrimination against Protestants. Initially, those of us who campaigned on that issue were dismissed as being inaccurate or as being only partially correct.
After the evidence began to mount, the defence from the Fair Employment Agency, later the Fair Employment Commission, against these allegations was that unfairness against the Protestant community was contained to very small geographic areas. Today I intend to demonstrate that there is widespread disadvantage being suffered now by the Protestant community right across Northern Ireland.
I want to turn now to present day events. Quite often in the Equality Commission reports we get facts and figures which can mislead people. The most relevant section of the tenth monitoring report is chapter five, entitled "Applicants and Appointees". I have made the point over and over again to successive Government Departments that the composition of a company or a public sector body, many of whose employees were employed twenty, thirty or forty years ago, is not important. That is of little relevance. What is of relevance is what those companies and the public sector are doing now, not whom they employed in 1960, 1970 or 1980, but whom they are employing today. That is the relevant and most significant section of any report.
The motion refers to the public sector. In table 41 from chapter five of the report we can see exactly how many people applied for positions in the public sector. This is not a small position in some corner; this is not some minor firm; this is the public sector, which had 125,448 applicants, one in four of the entire employed population of Northern Ireland. We are not talking about a sector or a small geographic area. We are talking about a swath of people looking for employment — more than 125,000 of them. If we exclude, as the Equality Commission has done, the applicants who cannot easily be put into either Protestant or Roman Catholic categories, we are left with 55% who are Protestants and almost 45% who are Catholic, and that in itself shows a very slight under-representation of Protestants. It is known that of the available workforce in Northern Ireland approximately 57% are Protestant, so we have a slight under-representation of Protestants applying for positions in the public sector.
This cause for concern is minimal, however, compared to the concern we have about those who were appointed from the 125,000 plus applicants — 16,101 people in all, a figure which breaks down to show 52% Protestants and almost 48% Catholics. I want to be absolutely clear, so that people know exactly what we are talking about, that this covers all sectors across Northern Ireland and shows not only an underrepresentation of Protestants applying for positions in the public sector, but a further under-representation of Protestants actually getting jobs in it. Only 52% were successful while Protestants make up 57% of the working population in Northern Ireland. As I say, more than 16,000 were recruited, and only 52% of them were Protestant.
I want to look at a couple of sectors to emphasise the point. In the health sector, 36,000 people applied for employment last year, of whom 49% were Protestant. Remember, it ought to have been 57%. Now, if we had expected 57% of those recruited to be Protestant, we would have been disappointed. Only 48% were Protestant — an under-representation of Protestants being employed in the health sector. Now lest anyone think that we are talking about a small number of people, over 6,000 people were offered employment last year in the health sector, and only 49% of them were Protestant.
We now turn to the huge education sector within the huge public sector where 16,564 people applied for jobs. Only 53·8% of them were Protestant — a 4% under-representation of the Protestant community in people applying for, not getting, jobs. What happened after that? Only 48% of them were successful. The pattern is emerging in department after department, and this time we are talking about 3,666 people who were successful in getting employment in the education sector — another very sizeable number of people.
I will move on to the issue of how this under-representation is defended. Often when I and others quote these statistics, which as I often say are not our statistics, but Government statistics from the agency set up to monitor the public sector, a defence is made which I call the quality defence. That means that there is a fall-back position. Some Government officials and some people in the old Fair Employment Commission would have said "Yes, the number of Protestants being employed is quite small, as you, MrCampbell, and others, allege, but the quality of the jobs, the people at the top end of the public sector are very predominantly Protestant." In other words, it is this nonsense that I hear from some commentators that Catholics get the menial jobs and the Protestants get the cream. That is a total and utter fallacy. The fallacy is proven by table 43 in chapter5 of the monitoring report.
What does it tell us? It uses a breakdown called the Standard Occupational Classification, which runs from SOC1 to SOC9. SOC1 jobs are the most highly paid positions: managers and administrators. SOC2 covers the professional occupations. SOC3s are associate professional and technical occupations. And so it goes, down to the lower grades at SOC9. If the myth and the nonsense were accurate, one would expect to see the highest numbers of Protestants at the higher grades, if what I hear from the pan-Nationalist front was accurate. In reality, it is the reverse. If we look at SOC1, SOC2 and SOC3, the three highest grades in the public sector, they have the lowest Protestant success rates. The higher the grade in the public sector, the less likely you are to find a Protestant. That is what this report tells us.
Looking at SOC1, 48% of those appointed last year were Protestant, and almost 52% Catholic. At the second highest grade, 47% were Protestant and 53% Catholic. At the third highest grade, 48% to just over 51%. You have to go right down to the bottom grades to get a higher number of Protestants, yet there are those who would tell us that Protestants get the most jobs and the best jobs. In reality, Protestants do not get their fair share of jobs, and the jobs that they do get are less qualified and lower paid. That may be uncomfortable, and people may rail against it and complain about it and not like it, but it is reality. They will have to face up to it. Where does that bring us?

Mr John Fee: Will the Member give way?

Mr Gregory Campbell: Yes.

Mr John Fee: The report is extremely detailed. Will the Member read out from the report that he has in front of him all the figures for all the classifications? Will he point out that the trick in the figures is that as Protestant representation decreases, the figure for non-returned or non-determined background increases in direct proportion?

Mr Gregory Campbell: I thank the hon Member for that inaccurate intervention. The Equality Commission has actually said that, over the years, the non-determined are decreasing in number, not increasing.
I want to come to my conclusion. There have been many figures, and I appreciate that those who have not got an intense interest might be somewhat confused, but I have tried to cut through the confusion and use these statistics to show that the myth and the campaign of nonsense is just that. It is utter nonsense.
In conclusion, this report proves three things. First, it proves that Protestants are slightly under-represented in the number of applicants to the public service. This cannot be refuted. Secondly, Protestants are even more under-represented in the numbers appointed to the positions for which they have applied. Again, this is irrefutable. To say otherwise is to deny the statistics contained in the report. Thirdly, Protestants are losing out in the higher grade of classification in the public sector, and, again, this cannot be refuted.
That brings us to what we have come to know as the equality agenda. Many people, both in this House and outside it, have campaigned on an equality agenda and have emphasised the need for equality. This infers that there is inequality at the moment. These statistics show that there is inequality but that it is suffered by the Unionist community. The Protestants are the people who are under-represented in the public sector and this needs to be addressed immediately by the Equality Commission. It must devote sufficient resources to an investigation of this problem as a matter of the utmost urgency.

Ms Jane Morrice: As a great number of Members have indicated that they wish to speak, I am forced to advise the House that the time allocated to each Member will be reduced to five minutes.

Dr Esmond Birnie: Madam Deputy Speaker, at least you are practising rigid equality by reducing everyone equally.
I too welcome the Equality Commission’s tenth annual monitoring report. I will make some important statements of principle at the outset. My party stands full square on the principle of equality of opportunity — accepting the principle of the best man or woman for the job. The 1998 Northern Ireland Act, in the relevant sections, discussed equality of opportunity. Equality of opportunity need not mean — and this is a crucial distinction — equality of outcome. This has been the subject of much ideological and political debate in many countries throughout the last century. This was a debate between liberal democracy, where value is ultimately placed on equality of opportunity and freedom, and totalitarian systems of politics, where attempts were made in vain to have everyone on the same level.
Public policy designed to create equality of opportunity should be directed towards individuals rather than geographical regions. It is individuals who are poor, unemployed or disadvantaged, not patches of ground. The key thing in the labour market , which is the specific point of this motion, is recruitment on merit. It is worth noting that even if recruitment is on merit — where the best person gets the job in every case — this could still be compatible with an unemployment rate differential between the two main sections of our community, or indeed with perceived imbalances in the percentage composition of employment in given enterprises. Chapter 5 of the report, which the proposer of the motion emphasised, shows the figures for recruitment inflow into jobs. We can see that in 1999 48% of all public sector appointments went to Catholics and 46% of private sector appointments likewise.
In both cases this represented more than the relevant share of the available labour force. This does not, of itself, prove discrimination or unfairness, but it is at least a cause for concern. It may be argued from some of the Benches that, in some sense, positive discrimination is justifiable to rectify a perceived historical wrong. However, there are at least three main responses to such an argument.
The first is a historical reply. How much actual and systematic discrimination against Catholics was there under the old Stormont Administration? There has been a huge debate on that issue among historians, economists, sociologists and others, and the result is by no means clear. Secondly, there is a moral reply. One should not try to put right one wrong by making another one today. Thirdly and lastly, there is a legal response. Positive discrimination is plainly illegal under current fair employment law. Where it is happening, that is wrong, and it is a legitimate cause for concern on the part of the Assembly.
Given the specific evidence in chapter5 of the report, which was highlighted by the proposer of the motion, and given the evidence on recruitment flows, I support this motion. Thank you.

Ms Patricia Lewsley: I oppose this motion, and in doing so I will attempt to dispel the myths surrounding equality in employment in Northern Ireland — myths, sadly, that MrCampbell seems intent on repeating today. In his motion, MrCampbell spuriously attempts to imply that Catholics have somehow received special treatment in Northern Ireland at the expense of Protestants. That is not only untrue, it is demonstrably untrue.
A myth linked to equality in employment is the claim that all new jobs go to Catholics. While the net increase in jobs is similar to the increase in the number of Catholics in the workforce, this in no way means that all new jobs have actually gone to Catholics. There is absolutely no evidence of discrimination in the jobs’ market. This can be illustrated by looking at the applicant to appointee rates. In 1999, 44·7% of public sector applicants were Catholic, and 44·4% of these were appointed; in the private sector Catholic applicants were 46·5%, with 46·2% appointees. It is interesting to note that the job applicants tend to be young, and the proportion of Catholics among the young is higher than among the workforce as a whole. Also, there are more Catholics who are unemployed and, therefore, applying for jobs and, as should be expected, getting jobs. The main problem is the under-representation in the Senior Civil Service where, of 232 staff, only 50 are Catholics.
Even if the Civil Service’s own targets are realised, which is unlikely, the figure would only rise to 30% by 2006. The SDLP favours setting up a review in this area to see how progress can be speeded up. There is also acute under-representation of Catholics in securityrelated occupations. The Catholic population is 42% of the workforce. When Senior Civil Service posts and security occupations are excluded, that percentage rises to 44% — slightly higher — but most of those jobs are lower paid ones held by women. There is a higher proportion of women in the workforce, 42%. It is to be expected that if Catholics will not apply for security-related jobs, then they will apply for the lower paid jobs. The SDLP has, therefore, called for the new police service to be subject to quotas on recruitment, and for it to be possible to keep the quota in place for more than 10years. The Government has agreed to this.
We have called for a guarantee that the quota will be kept in place for 10years, and that it will apply to police support staff. As the Police Bill stands, it will only apply where there are 10similar posts available at the same time. This will never happen. The SDLP agrees with the Equality Commission that it should apply where there are two similar posts.
The main function of fair employment legislation is to eliminate discrimination in the employment and dismissal of employees. Not one single element of fair employment law can be held up by Mr Campbell to demonstrate that such laws discriminate against Protestants. Put simply, fair employment laws are religion neutral. They favour neither Catholic, Protestant, Sikh nor Muslim, so reform of the fair employment laws is quite unnecessary.
If, as Mr Campbell claims, there is an underrepresentation of Protestants, perfectly adequate measures already exist to address that, the same measures that would be applied if there were an under-representation of Catholics or of any other religion in Northern Ireland. Fair employment legislation does allow for some affirmative action to be taken in order to achieve a balanced workforce: encouraging applicants from under-represented communities; revising redundancy policies; providing training for the long-term unemployed; and so on. However, none of those measures discriminates. The principle of employing the best person to do the job still holds true.
Mr Campbell has previously cited over-representation of Catholics on Newry and Mourne District Council and Down District Council. These councils have taken affirmative action measures to redress this imbalance. I note that he failed to mention those councils which are not dealing with this issue, for example, Castlereagh Borough Council.
The Equality Commission was established as part of the Good Friday Agreement, and it espoused equality for all. I propose that we do not support this motion.

Mr Conor Murphy: Go raibh maith agat. I sometimes wonder whether it is worth replying to motions from what can only be described as the flat-earth society — people who attempt to ignore all historical evidence — [Interruption]
Are you going to make me sit down?

Mr Gregory Campbell: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. We heard very clearly on this side of the House what appeared to be a threat from the hon Member, Conor Murphy. He asked someone on this side of the House if he was going to make him sit down. In everyday parlance outside the House that sort of language is normally associated with aggressive, corner-boy tactics and a punch-up.

Ms Jane Morrice: I am not aware that such a remark was made. I will check Hansard and come back.

Mr Conor Murphy: DUP Members would recognise corner-boy tactics since it is chiefly they who use them in the Chamber.
Anyway, with regard to the motion from the "flat-earth society", Mr Campbell’s argument about applicants and appointees asks us to ignore all the discrimination of the past 80 years and just deal with today — forget about everything that has gone before, just deal with today. It also ignores the fact that the age group most likely to be applying for jobs at the moment is different from that of what he refers to as the overall population. I think that he is referring to the 1991 census. He also asks us to ignore the recent statistics which show that Catholics in that age group are better qualified. Finally, he asks us to ignore the Equality Commission’s report and its interpretation of that report and deal with the Gregory Campbell interpretation instead. The Equality Commission has said that one of its key challenges is the continuing under-representation of Catholics at senior grades in the Civil Service. Mr Campbell obviously knows the report better than the commission does.
Overall, Protestant male employment has gone down by 0·7%, and Protestant female employment has stayed the same. The only statistics that I could see that reflected any of that was in the section on standard occupational classification six, which deals with personal and protective services and employment in the security industry. Indeed, Catholics only make up 27·4% of the employees in this area. A possible reason for the marginal downturn of Protestant employment in this sector may be that a large number of RUC officers are availing themselves of early retirement, in comparison with the number being recruited.
(Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr McClelland] in the Chair)
The argument has been made that the representation of Catholics in the workforce in the public sector now reflects their proportion of the economically active population. There are a number of points to be made: this excludes the security-related occupations; it ignores the fact that Catholics are employed in the lower levels of the public sector; it ignores the large numbers who are economically inactive; and it ignores the fact that a younger Catholic workforce is coming on stream, while the Protestant workforce reflects an ageing population.
The report does not examine where the minute increases in Catholic employment or the minute decreases in Protestant employment are the result of natural wastage in the workforce, for example, where more Protestants are retiring than Catholics. The report needs a broader analysis of occupational classification such as tenure or duration of employment to get a real picture of the employment differential. The 1997 labour force survey states that the unemployment rate for Catholics is 12% as opposed to 5% for Protestants. In my constituency of Newry and Armagh it is 15% for Catholics as opposed to 2·9% for Protestants. The agency describes the unemployment rate for Catholics as being substantially higher than for Protestants, but says that the Government are committed to narrowing the gap. It is worrying that some of the recent attempts to undermine the unemployment differential as a measure of disadvantage and discrimination have come from the Office of the First and the Deputy First Minister. We will continue to be very vigilant about this.
I hope that the Equality Commission ignored the attacks on the unemployment differential as a measure of disadvantage and discrimination —

Mr Denis Haughey: Can you give us an example of such a recent attempt that has come from the Office of the First and Deputy First Ministers?

Mr Conor Murphy: During the last debate on the equality scheme, your fellow Junior Minister attacked the unemployment differential as being a proper measure —

Mr Donovan McClelland: Please address your remarks to the Chair.

Mr Dermot Nesbitt: Will the Member take a point of information? It is not a point of order.

Mr Conor Murphy: I will if the Chair will allow me time to finish my contribution.

Mr Donovan McClelland: I will allow you time to finish your contribution, but I remind you to address your remarks to the Chair.

Mr Conor Murphy: You did not remind the Junior Minister to do the same.

Mr Donovan McClelland: The Junior Minister was asking if you would give way, and he was entitled to address you directly. In other instances remarks should be addressed to the Chair.

Mr Conor Murphy: Further to that point or order, Mr Speaker. The Junior Minister asked me a question, and it would be sensible to address my response to him.

Mr Dermot Nesbitt: I did not ask him to answer a question; I asked him if he would take a point of information, not a point of order. Will he take a point of information?

Mr Conor Murphy: I do not have the time left, but I am sure that we will continue to have this argument. There is a concerted campaign in Unionism to undermine the unemployment differential as a measure of discrimination, and we will continue to be vigilant.

Mr Dermot Nesbitt: Let me put it on the record. What I said last time I will stand over from a statistical point of view, from a labour-market point of view. I was not trying to undermine any party or any individual. I stick to the objective statistical fact about unemployment.

Mr Donovan McClelland: I am sorry, MrNesbitt, but that is not a point of order.

Mr Conor Murphy: Thank you for further time, Mr Deputy Speaker. As you quite rightly pointed out, it was not a point of order.
I conclude my remarks by expressing the hope that the Equality Commission will ignore this and continue to deal with the urgent matters in its remit.

Mr Alban Maginness: An analysis of the report of the Equality Commission shows that over a period of 10 years very significant progress was made on the historic imbalance in the employment for Catholics.
That is something to be welcomed rather than criticised or belittled. It is progress that has been made in our society, and it is important for us to reflect on the fact that progress has been made since the introduction of the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1989. The preceding Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1976 had very little power, and between that period and 1990 the situation for Catholics at work did not improve very much.
This shows the effect of the determination of the Fair Employment Agency and the Fair Employment Commission to tackle the problem of employment for Catholics since that time, and that is something to be celebrated rather than criticised. In some areas there are still significant deficiencies. If one looks, for example, at the heavy engineering industry in Belfast, one can see considerable under-representation of Catholics. The same is true in the security forces and in the higher levels of the Civil Service. This motion is trying to cherry-pick one aspect to show that the Protestant community is suffering from some form of reverse discrimination. That is absolute nonsense, and when one looks at the figures, and at the totality of this report, one can see quite clearly that that is not happening.
Let me take issue with MrCampbell, who talked about "the simple cliché of Catholic unemployment". How insulting can one get? Anybody who is unemployed suffers. Nobody is unemployed because he wants to be, and anyone who is unemployed is suffering serious disadvantage. To belittle people and to belittle that section of the community and refer to them as a simple cliché is outrageous. For any responsible Member of this House to use that sort of language to insult people is something to be deplored by all Members of this House. I hope that MrCampbell will withdraw that remark, because it is a searing insult to people and seriously damaging.
When one looks at the overall situation in Northern Ireland and at the continuing problem of the over-representation of Catholics within the unemployed sector, one has to address that and ask why we have this historic problem. I believe that new TSN is one way of addressing it. There is no point in our coming to the House and bemoaning the problem — we have to have policies that will direct the attention of the Administration and public services to eradicating it. That is something with which we can all agree, because there would be a net benefit for the whole community. I look forward to the day when there is full employment in this community and when this unseemly scrabble over statistics on imbalances in the workplace is finally put to rest.

Mr Donovan McClelland: Mr Maginness, your time is up.

Mrs Eileen Bell: I welcome both the report and the debate. Even though we tend to disagree, it is healthy that we discuss these important matters. In an earlier debate I stated that equality means different things to different people. I can now say the same thing about the statistics in the Equality Commission’s report. Statistics can be interpreted in many ways depending on the reader and what they wish to extract from them. Indeed, as I am sure everyone knows, Mark Twain referred to them as
"lies, damned lies and statistics".
For the benefit of others in the House that should be that the Devil can quote the Scripture for his own.
The report was actually quite heartening, particularly from the point of view that jobs in all sectors appear to be more accessible to all job seekers in Northern Ireland. Concerns on the issues of gender and religious persuasion have been, and are continuing to be, addressed. One of my principal concerns on the issue of monitoring is that it does not seem to take into account that it is still very difficult, if not impossible, to employ people in areas of Northern Ireland where they do not feel comfortable. Some people, because of gender, religion, race or ability, do not feel comfortable and perhaps do not feel safe, not just in the workplace itself, but also in travelling to and from their place of work.
If we examine the tables in chapters three, four and five of the report, which outline the composition of authorities, public and private sector bodies and appointments to them, they confirm the fact that in some areas the situation somehow determines the make-up of the workforce. We must try to read such a report objectively.
I have also been particularly heartened by the increase in female employment, not only in the traditional service areas, but also in public sector management. I have examined the tables and figures given in the report, particularly those relating to the public sector, which appear to cause MrCampbell concern. I do not see any substantial evidence to suggest that his views are completely right. The report states that an increase in the participation of Catholics in the workforce was approximately half of one percent each year over the ten years of the monitoring. I do not think that that is too worrying.
Protestants continue to be fairly represented in Northern Ireland’s workforce and still find themselves in the majority in many sectors. The statistics, of course, do not show an increase in the percentage representation of Catholics in various sectors. However, after years of gross under-representation of Catholic people in our workforce, at least progress has been made towards achieving a just and balanced situation. Therefore, these figures should be warmly welcomed instead of being used to set off alarm bells. However, I say to Mr Campbell, if alarm bells are set off, the Equality Commission should be asked to account for that. Mr Campbell is actually implying that there is — positive though it may be — religious discrimination against Protestants. As another Member stated, this is illegal and it should be dealt with. I hope that Mr Campbell will be taking that matter to the Commission.
All in all, I am glad to see that in both the public and private sectors there is redress in the balance of Catholic workers. It is noted that there is still concern with respect to the percentage representation of Catholics in the security sector, but let us hope that this too will be reduced and not necessarily through quotas.
There should never be tokenism of a religious or a gender nature, and I think the report shows that that is not the case. The Civil Service, as has been mentioned, also needs to look at the gender and religious background of its senior grades. I hope, as a member of the Commission, that all our recruitment procedures will be open, transparent and accessible and fair to all.
Beneficial as these statistics may be in monitoring Northern Ireland’s workforce, I long to see the day that the focus will be taken away from whether an employee is Catholic or Protestant; male or female; able or disabled, or is of any particular race. Instead, I hope that jobs are awarded to candidates on merit alone. I hope that one day a person will be capable of proving him or herself the best candidate for a job just for being the person they are, and not for what the statistics say they should be. I cannot support the motion.

Mr Peter Weir: I support the motion. When the Government are faced with the issue of equality they can take one of two routes. Either they can support equality of opportunity for all, which is the correct route, or they can try to eliminate the unemployment differential between the two main communities. That is clearly the route which the SDLP is going down in supporting quotas in the RUC. Unfortunately, that has been the net effect of the fair employment legislation over the last 25years.

A Member: Will the Member give way?

Mr Peter Weir: Unfortunately, I have only fiveminutes, so I shall not give way.
If one compares employment statistics from 1971 onwards, one will find that the Catholic share of the workforce in 1971 was about 29%. It is now nearly 40%. The number of Protestants in employment now compared with 1971 is down by roughly 15,000. The number of Catholics in employment has risen by about 84,000. Yet in spite of this large increase, in both actual and percentage terms, a differential gap remains with regard to the number of Catholics employed. As has been claimed by some other Members, such a gap does not mean that there is employment inequality, for while the Catholic percentage share of employment has increased throughout that period, it has constantly been chasing a moving target, particularly because of birth-rate differentials and other factors.
I also question whether the figure of 39·6% for the Catholic share of the workforce is correct, since it is based on public-sector employees and those in private-sector firms employing more than 25people. Indeed, if one compares the 1991 figure with the census figure, one will find that about 170,000people are not included. These, generally speaking, are people employed in small firms. Figures suggest that they have a higher Catholic recruitment rate.
I should like to move to the substance of the motion. The statistics tell us a number of things. First, in public-sector recruitment figures for nine of the last 10years, the percentage of Catholics appointed was higher than their share of the workforce, and in the one year when it was not, it was more or less the same. In the private sector, this was true for each of the last 10 years.
Let us break that down using another statistic. I have carried out a little research on this. There were 37public bodies in 1997 with a higher percentage of Catholic employees than their share of the workforce, 41with a higher percentage of Protestants than one might expect. Using these statistics, how have they performed since 1997? Of the 37 public-sector bodies with a disproportionately high number of Roman Catholics, in 24 cases the percentage of Catholic employment has actually risen. In only 10 of them has it gone down.
Of the 41 public bodies with a disproportionately high number of Protestants, the percentage of Catholics in 1999 rose in 29 and decreased in nine. There were 23 bodies with a disproportionately high number of Roman Catholics in 1991. Of those, 17 had actually increased their percentage of Roman Catholics by 1999. Of the five where that percentage decreased, in only one case was it by more than 2%.
The same can be seen on the Protestant side, where 32 public bodies had a disproportionately high number of Protestants. The Catholic percentage has increased in 27 of them and decreased in only three. We are seeing a two-tier reaction on fair employment. Where there is a disproportionately high number of Catholics in the public sector, that number is increasing. Where there is a disproportionately high number of Protestants, it is decreasing. Those statistics clearly show that there is discrimination.
With regard to the broad sectors of health and education, where there has been a disproportionately high number of Catholics, that percentage has increased. In the other sectors where there is a disproportionately high number of Protestants, it has decreased. This clearly shows discrimination.
I urge Members to support the motion.

Mr John Dallat: Many years ago, when the SDLP campaigned for funding for the Fair Employment Agency it was very much opposed by the DUP. I am delighted to see so many copies of the equal opportunities report tonight — that is progress.
I once read a paperback called ‘How to Lie with Statistics’. It is an absolute must for the politician who wants to make a case out of nothing. I threw it away because I want to live in the real world — not the world of make-believe.
For years I followed with interest Mr Campbell’s claims of discrimination in his native city, and I often wondered if he was really genuine in his quest for fair employment. My wishes were granted when he got the DUP nomination for East Derry — mind you, the local papers are still talking about the statistics for that. He won the seat, and I was glad. This was because I hoped he would bring with him the strong anti-discriminatory principles he has been telling us about all these years. But not a bit of it. Indeed, I suggest he would defend to the death the high moral ground of those employers in his new constituency who have serious problems redressing the imbalance in their workforces but stubbornly refuse to carry in their advertisements the ice-breaker "We are equal opportunities employers".
That is the problem with statistics. You can add them, multiply them, or do what you like with them. You can say the tank is half empty or half full, depending on whether you are a pessimist or an optimist. Unfortunately, Catholic male unemployment is still twice as high as that for Protestants. Over the last ten years the figures in the public service have not changed significantly. There is a slight fall in Protestant representation, matched by a slight increase in Catholic percentages — that is all. In local government, taking an average of all 26 councils, 63.4% of all employees are still designated as Protestant. In several categories Catholics are particularly under-represented, especially in the higher grades. In the four worst councils, the average percentage of Catholic employment is less than 8%.
Nevertheless, there has been improvement, and all right-thinking people should be encouraged by that progress because in the end every one is a winner. When genuine equality has been established, the old system of begging for a job on the basis of religion, rather than ability and skills to do the job, will be gone, and this country will have come of age. Fair employment legislation is no longer peculiar to Northern Ireland. We may have pioneered it out of necessity, but it is now common practice for countries all over the world to monitor performance figures, not only on grounds of religion but on gender, age, disability and all the other categories listed in the Equality Commission’s report. That is nothing more than common sense and good practice. The figures Mr Campbell quotes are cleverly selected to make a case were there is none, but I am not suggesting that he has been reading my book "How to Lie with Statistics". However, he could well have written it.
Fair employment is still an emotive term. It whips up fears and encourages prejudices. Fair employment legislation is just as important for the Protestant community as it is for the Catholic community. All persons are entitled to have their rights protected. Let us work the legislation by keeping our attention focused on real politics. Let us work together in harmony so that new high paid, skilled jobs are created and no one is unemployed or made to hold down jobs which require lower skills than they have. That is the work faced by politicians in the future, and that is what we should be about, rather than living in the past, which failed everyone and benefited no one. No one in their right mind condones discrimination against Protestants; there is nothing to be had in reversing the roles.
Unfortunately, the motion is divisive and that is regrettable because it denies the Assembly the opportunity to speak with one voice on a subject that is common to everyone. The SDLP in no way condones discrimination against any group of people and we are seriously concerned that Mr Campbell will be successful in creating a chill factor among Protestants. That is precisely what happened in Down Council where a DUP member made claims of discrimination where there were none and created a problem as a result of his claims. I am totally against the motion, and I am sorry it was discussed here at all.

Ms Michelle Gildernew: Go raibh maith agat. I have listened with interest to the contributions made here on the issue of equality of employment, and I have to say that if this issue were not so serious, comments made by those on the Unionist benches would be laughable. For eighty years, since the inception of this state, discrimination has been carried out wholesale on the Nationalist community. For years, your name and the school you attended were more of an indication of your ability to do a job than your qualifications. When hundreds of young Catholics boarded boats and planes in search of employment, the shipyard in Belfast was employing men on the basis that their father, brother or uncle had worked there before them.
Now, after years of work in the community, intense lobbying by Nationalist representatives and the Irish Government, and international pressure, due in no small part to the MacBride principles, we have finally got legislation in place to try to address this. However, there is no getting away from the fact that Catholics are still more likely to be unemployed than Protestants in the Six Counties.
We are now hearing about studies being carried by Unionist advisors who are attempting to redefine the criteria for ranking deprivation. Attempts are being made to devise a formula to find the pockets of deprivation complained of by the UUP and DUP. The consequence of this will be that pockets of deprivation will be given ranking equivalence to ward upon ward of deprived Nationalist and Republican communities.

Mr Danny Kennedy: Will the Member give way?

Ms Michelle Gildernew: No, I do not have enough time. Everyone knows that the argument that the UUP and DUP have made over pockets of deprivation amidst affluence having some sort of equivalence to wards of multiple deprivation has no theoretical basis in social science. However, it is likely to be presented in such a way as to suggest it does. This attempt to equalise or neutralise deprivation fails when one examines statistical evidence in constituencies like Fermanagh and South Tyrone, where Catholic unemployment stands at 13.3% compared to 3.9% Protestant unemployment. Republicans have concerns that the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister is not seriously addressing equality matters. Indeed, it is not just Republicans but many Nationalists who regard high ranking civil servants and advisors as people who wield too much influence over the future of the equality agenda, especially when one of those advisors has already stated his ‘religious blind’ approach when dealing with equality matters. This approach is in direct conflict with affirmative action programmes, action plans and timetables.

Mr Danny Kennedy: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Is it right for a Member of this House to impugn the integrity of a civil servant or anyone else engaged in the work of government?

Mr Donovan McClelland: That is not a point of order.

Ms Michelle Gildernew: There is therefore a strong argument for the Equality Unit to become the subject of the closest scrutiny possible. [Interruption]

Mr Danny Kennedy: I question your ruling.

Mr Donovan McClelland: You cannot question a ruling from the Chair. You will not question — [Interruption] Sit down, MrKennedy. [Interruption] Order. Sit down, Mr Kennedy.

Ms Michelle Gildernew: Go raibh maith agat, Deputy Speaker. Examining the latest labour force surveys — [Interruption]

Mr Danny Kennedy: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Mr Donovan McClelland: Mr Kennedy, I advise you now that if you do not sit down I will have you named and removed from the Chamber.

Mr Roy Beggs: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Will you refer the matter to MrSpeaker for consultation as to whether it was appropriate as a point of order?

Mr Donovan McClelland: As you know, Mr Beggs, it is for the person in the Chair now, and no one else.

Ms Michelle Gildernew: Examining latest labour force survey reports, which are the most recent available statistic denoting long-term unemployment, one finds that the survey for 1997 revealed an alarming differential of 2.9% for Catholic males when compared to Protestant males. Such a figure was the highest differential since the 1960’s. Furthermore, page 9 of the most recently published labour force survey report states quite clearly that Catholic males have been typically twice as likely as Protestant males to be unemployed. Yet, we hear Mr Campbell refer to the worsening under-representation of the Protestant community, particularly relating to the public sector.
Since this statelet was artificially created, its over-representation by the Protestant community has been well documented. The statelet has been policed by one section of the community, and has also been serviced by that same Protestant community in the Civil Service. Therefore, one of the many problems that the Equality Commission needs to address, urgently, is the religious and gender composition of the Civil Service.
Attention must be given to the fact that there is still an under-representation of Catholics throughout the service, especially at the higher levels. There is a need for an urgent review of its compositional make-up. While noting how few Catholics are employed, consideration also needs to be given to how few women are employed, and how few of them hold managerial and professional positions in the standard occupational classification ranking.
If such data were examined, Mr Campbell would learn that it is the under-representation of the Catholic community and the over-representation of the Protestant community that must be dealt with. Sinn Féin asks the Equality Commission to address this matter urgently.
I do not support the motion. Go raibh maith agat.

Mr Dermot Nesbitt: I have listened carefully to Members on both sides of the House, and I would like to begin by making some general comments.
First of all, equality is at the heart of the Good Friday Agreement. It must be applied to both communities and in an even-handed way. By recruiting only on merit, we are doing just that. The right man or woman should secure the job solely on that basis.
The Equality Commission’s report, its tenth, makes a valuable contribution to the understanding of what is a very sensitive issue for both the Catholic and Protestant communities. Is there or is there not discrimination? Is there or is there not fair employment? Is there or is there not fair promotion? Is there or is there not fair recruitment? These are very sensitive issues to both communities. Therefore, as I said on 6 June when I last spoke on the subject, I will measure my words carefully. I will endeavour, Mr Deputy Speaker, to stand over every word I say.
As always with statistics, they need to be read and interpreted very carefully and not quoted ambiguously. There are structural changes we must be aware of — for example, the age structure of the population. There is a higher proportion of the younger age group in the Catholic community. Also, immigration, emigration and birth rates are different with respect to the Catholic and Protestant communities. These factors must be considered in the analysis of the statistics. The key test is, as noted, applicants and appointees, and how they move into employment. They may come from the unemployed or from the inactive population. They may be students or mothers who were not working and now seek work. Those entering employment come from different sources. Therefore, it is never easy to draw conclusions about the differential aspects of unemployment and about whether there is fairness in employment. Everything must be carefully analysed.
I mentioned the unemployment differential. I am conscious that Mr Campbell refers to the underrepresentation of Protestants, the corollary of that being the vast increase in work for Catholics that is seen to be happening in Northern Ireland. I want to make it clear: there are more Catholics unemployed. If more Catholics are unemployed there is more disadvantage. If there are more Catholics unemployed and they are all seeking work and are all equally qualified, and if we are working on the merit principle then it follows that, on a proportionate basis, more Catholics would be getting jobs than Protestants. That is not detrimental to the merit principle or to equality of opportunity, and it is not unfair. Therefore, we must be very careful in our analysis of the statistics. I will not say any more about the unemployment differential, and I have to tell MrConorMurphy that I will stand over the comments I have made on the subject.
Let me now deal with the point in the motion about the worsening under-representation of the Protestant community. As I said, statistics are to be interpreted carefully. Therefore, I cannot support Mr Campbell’s motion. In my view, the jury is out on it.
Let me just give one or two statistics. The Protestant workforce is 60.4%, but 58% of the available workforce is from the Protestant community. Therefore, the proportion in work is higher than that available for work from the Protestant community. The private sector employs 60.2% of Protestants, but the public sector employs 61%. Remember, Protestants make up 58% of those available for work. I know Mr Campbell quotes Government statistics, but there is a difficulty with Government statistics. Government statistics from the Department of Finance and Personnel state that the number of applicants from 1996 to 1998 from the Protestant community was 46.7% while 51.5% of those appointed were Protestant. These statistics are not exactly the same as those in the monitoring report from the Fair Employment Commission or the Equal Opportunities Commission.
We have two sets of statistics that say a slightly different thing. Let me just give you one of the reasons for the difference. The Equality Commission’s report stated that if one person applied ten times for a job, it would count as one application. However, the Department of Finance and Personnel, if one person applied ten times, would count it as ten applications — a totally different basis for the statistics, yet both are, to use Mr Campbell’s words, "Government statistics".
Yes, there are statistics and selective statistics. Mr Campbell referred to health and education. You could equally refer to the Equality Commission’s report on district councils. According to page 54, 56.8% of the district councils were Protestant, as were 58.1% of those who were appointed, so there are statistics and statistics. I cannot support the precise wording of MrCampbell’s motion. It criticises the worsening under-representation, and the jury is still out on that.

Mr Derek Hussey: May I have an interpretation of Standing Order 58(1)(e), which refers to any Member who
"uses unparliamentary words which he/she refuses to withdraw".
Is it in order for a Member of the House to impugn the integrity of hard-working civil servants?

Mr Donovan McClelland: I will ensure that Hansard is examined, and I will notify the House if unparliamentary language has been used.

Mr Derek Hussey: Further to that point of order, MrDeputy Speaker. If it is found that unparliamentary language was not used, will it be in order for the Deputy Speaker to apologise to the Member who he assumed was out of order?

Mr Donovan McClelland: As far as I am concerned, the Member was out of order. I have made it clear to the House that I will ensure that Hansard is examined. If unparliamentary language was used, that information will be conveyed to the House.
Before I call Mr Haughey, may I ask that Members, whether Ministers or otherwise, address their remarks to the Chair and not to other Members.

Mr Denis Haughey: I will endeavour to bear in mind what you have said, MrDeputySpeaker.
I could not agree more with the comment of my Colleague Mr Dallat that he found it extremely difficult to keep patience with this sort of nonsense. Mr Campbell endeavoured to give the House some facts. Let me give you some facts that derive directly from the statistics. Protestants make up 58% of the available workforce. Catholics make up 42%. Overall, the Protestant share of the workforce is currently 60·4%. That is 2·4% higher than their numbers in the available workforce. In the private sector, Protestants make up 60·2% of the workforce, which is 2·2% higher than their share of the available workforce. In the public sector, they make up 61%. In the Northern Ireland Civil Service between 1996 and 1998, 46·7% of applications were from Protestants, and that resulted in their getting 51·5% of the appointments.

Mr Maurice Morrow: The Member is supposed to address the Chair.

Mr Denis Haughey: Is a point of order being made, Mr Deputy Speaker?

Mr Donovan McClelland: Order.

Mr Denis Haughey: Catholics made 44·7% of the applications and were awarded 42·8% of the appointments. In the higher reaches of the Civil Service there are 232 staff, of whom 50 are Catholics: 21·5% of the workforce. Only one Northern Ireland Civil Service category has an under-representation of the Protestant community. That is the 114 careers officers. When monitoring began in 1990, Catholics made up 34·9% of the workforce. In 1999 they were assessed at 39·6%. That is an encouraging increase, but it still falls short of the 42% of the available workforce who are Catholic. There is still work to be done.
Whereas fair employment legislation is based on the merit principle at the point of employment, and redress is possible through the courts, affirmative action is also possible. We in the SDLP would have liked to see a great deal more of that, but as certain people will have learned over the last 30 years, you cannot get all that you want. The affirmative action that we would have liked to see does not extend to the sort of measures that I thought —wrongly, I am afraid — I had in front of me.
Moving on, I agree emphatically with my Colleague Alban Maginness about TSN. Research indicates that a number of factors cause relative deprivation in the Catholic community and give rise to greater difficulty in gaining employment. The Catholic community has a younger age structure. There is reluctance on the part of Catholics to seek employment in security-related occupations. There is a higher proportion of Catholics in the lower socio-economic groups where unemployment is highest. A higher proportion of Catholic than Protestant families have large numbers of children. That is a very telling point. In both communities, families with large numbers of children are more prone to unemployment.
That brings me to an important point about new TSN. New TSN targets social disadvantage. We hope that that will lead to an erosion of the differentials in unemployment between the two communities, not because it discriminates in favour of the Catholic community but because it targets social disadvantage. Targeting social disadvantage helps those, both Protestant and Catholic, who happen to be socially disadvantaged, and therefore it is a non-discriminatory attack on the reasons for the differential in unemployment.
I have very little time left, but I would like to ask MrCampbell a question. I hope he will answer. I do not want him to evade it. There are people in the DUP, and further afield, who believe that Protestants are currently being unfairly treated in the labour market. There are many people in my party, and in other parties, who believe that there is a continuing problem with fair employment and that the difficulties lie disproportionately on the Catholic side of the community.
Can we agree on one simple conclusion from all of this — that there is a difficulty with fair employment? That says to me that we need the toughest and the strongest possible legislation to outlaw discrimination in employment. Does MrCampbell agree with me on that? We need the toughest and the strongest possible Government agencies to deal with the problem of inequality in education and with discrimination where it exists. We need to monitor the whole situation so that the Government can take appropriate measures. Predictably, but regrettably, Sinn Féin Members tried to lay blame on the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister in relation to these matters. I regret that their concern about fair employment did not extend to their Colleagues —

Mr Donovan McClelland: Mr Haughey, withdraw your remark.

Mr Denis Haughey: —

Mr Francie Molloy: rose. [Interruption]

Mr Donovan McClelland: Order. [Interruption]
Order, MrMolloy. [Interruption] MrMolloy, I am on my feet, which means that you will not be on yours. MrMolloy, I am on my feet, and you will not be on yours. [Interruption] You will sit down, MrMolloy. [Interruption] Mr Molloy, you will sit down. [Interruption] Order, MrMolloy. [Interruption] Sit down, MrMolloy.
I call MrCampbell.

Mr Gregory Campbell: I think that a period of cool, calm reflection is required, and I hope I will be able to bring something of that to the debate. I will try to deal with some of the issues that were raised.
In dealing with the factual position underlining and underpinning the motion, I had hoped that those who oppose it would have had some substance to their argument. I had hoped that they might not revert to hyperbole, to emotive phrases and to simplistic catchphrases. I had hoped that would be the case, but I am afraid to say that I have been disappointed. However, when a community and a series of public representatives are faced with cold, hard facts that they may want to quibble about, that they may want to dodge, that they may want to try to avoid or evade and cannot, then they have to resort to clichés. I had hoped that they might actually engage in the substance of the debate, but sadly, all too often this was not the case. MsLewsley made reference to the numbers of unemployed, and she is right of course. Proportionately there are more unemployed Roman Catholics than Protestants, but there is an underlying assumption that the 125,000 people who applied for jobs in the public sector all came from the ranks of the unemployed. Why should people assume that this is the case? Of course it is not the case. A sizeable number of them may be, but not all of those applying for jobs in the public sector are unemployed. To imply that the unemployment ratio should be used as a benchmark against which the numbers of public sector applicants are assessed really is a nonsense. I hope I have dealt with that.
I am not going to give credibility to those who represent terrorism by naming them, but several Nationalist Members had the breathtaking hypocrisy to mention that the security-related sector has to be taken into account — I thought they would have avoided it like the plague. These people, who for 30 years have advised Catholics not to take jobs in the security-related sector, are now saying that Catholics are under-represented in the security-related field.

Mr Derek Hussey: Does the Member agree that Catholics were not just so advised but intimidated and physically abused?

Mr Gregory Campbell: That is what I meant by "breathtaking hypocrisy". They were advised not to take positions in the security sector, and the small number from the Roman Catholic community who did were intimidated. Members, some of whom are associated with the organisation that did the intimidating, are now getting to their feet and saying that there are very few Catholics in the security sector. There are very few Catholics in that sector because their affiliates shot them when they did work in it.
The SDLP does not escape blame. Since 1972 it has advocated that the Catholic community should not take up employment with the RUC, the UDR or the Royal Irish Regiment, yet many SDLP Members have asked tonight, as a defence, about the security-related sector. The position in the security-related sector would have been much better if the SDLP had advocated that its community should join. They are responsible for the under-representation of Catholics in the security-related sector, although not as much as the IRA, which shot people when they did come forward from the Catholic community.
I thank MrWeir for his reference to the differential gap. At the outset I referred to the cliché about Catholics being more likely to be unemployed than Protestants. Certain people seem to have a blind spot, because statistics available in the Irish Republic show that Catholics in Counties Donegal and Monaghan are three times more likely to be unemployed than Protestants. Is that because of discrimination? If it is, what are the Dublin Government doing about it? That situation cannot be because of a Government agency, a conspiracy or a sense of paranoia in the establishment in Dublin to deprive the good Catholics of Monaghan and Donegal of employment. The reasons for such a situation in the Irish Republic need to be addressed.
References were made to the principle of equality, and I was amazed at the junior Minister, MrNesbitt, referring to equality being at the heart of the Good Friday Agreement. If equality is at the heart of the agreement then we will see within a week the terms of that equality. If the Unionist community is demonstrated to be opposed to this agreement, and if a greater number of Unionists is against this agreement than for it, then there will have to be a fundamental reassessment if equality is at the heart of it. However, that is a matter for next week, and I will not proceed down that avenue.
The other junior Minister, MrHaughey, referred to the overall workforce breakdown, and my concluding remarks will deal with that.
It is somewhat confusing for the average layperson hearing these figures being bandied about to come to terms with the overall principle underpinning the motion. That is why I attempted to keep it as general as possible and why I studiously avoided being selective, despite the accusations. If we look at tables 41 and 42 on pages47 and 48 of the tenth annual monitoring report, we see that 55% of public-sector applications are from Protestants, but only 52% of all appointees are Protestant. People can avoid, evade or dodge that. They can try to get under it, climb over it, or get round it, but they will have to face up to it eventually. That is equality at work.
The Protestant community is demanding true equality. As of the tenth annual monitoring report, it does not have that. People can try to take us up a sidetrack or bring us into bypath meadow, but they cannot evade the central issue — the Protestant community’s under-representation in the public sector in Northern Ireland.

Mr Denis Haughey: Will the Member give way?

Mr Gregory Campbell: I will not give way. I have less than a minute. [Interruption]

Mr Donovan McClelland: I am sorry, Mr Haughey, but MrCampbell has indicated that he will not give way.

Mr Gregory Campbell: I will conclude by referring to remarks made by MrHaughey and by talking in a straightforward manner so that the public and Members may be clear. Look at the higher echelons of the public sector in Northern Ireland. The higher the echelon, the smaller are the numbers of Protestants gaining employment. That is what the facts say. One cannot deny the facts; one cannot avoid them. That is what they say. The lower the grade in the public sector, the more likely it is that Protestants are employed there. The reality is the reverse of the propaganda.
I urge Members to vote strongly in favour of this motion in order to make the Equality Commission face up the facts contained in the tenth annual monitoring report and to allow us to get something done about it.

Mr Denis Haughey: On a point of order, MrDeputy Speaker. The Member has 15minutes to sum up. That gives him five minutes to answer my question.

Mr Donovan McClelland: Mr Campbell, do you wish to give way to MrHaughey?

Mr Gregory Campbell: Yes, I will give way for a brief intervention.

Mr Denis Haughey: I have just made a point of order; it was not a point of information. It was to point out that MrCampbell has five minutes left in which he could answer the question. Does all of this mean that we need the strongest possible fair employment legislation?

Mr Donovan McClelland: That was not a point of order. I assumed that you were asking MrCampbell to give way.

Mr Gregory Campbell: I thought that MrHaughey was trying to intervene. I allowed him to intervene, and then he declined.
With regard to the point raised by MrHaughey, a lack of tough legislation is not the issue. The issue is how that legislation is being implemented when it comes down to MrWeir’s point about under-representation in either section of the community. Is there equal validity being given to the under-representation of Catholics in a workforce, as there is to the under-representation of Protestants in a workforce. The reality is that there is not. There is not the same emphasis or resources being deployed to deal with under-representation of Protestants, as I made clear at the outset.
The Equality Commission, the Government and the previous Fair Employment Commission based the whole rationale for their fair-employment legislation on the fact that Catholics are more likely to be unemployed than Protestants. They will not move away from that underlying principle. Until they do, we will be in an awkward position.

Mr Denis Haughey: Does the Member mean that we need different fair employment legislation? Do we need even tougher fair employment legislation? Is that what the Member means? Is he proposing that we have different and tougher fair employment legislation?

Mr Gregory Campbell: I thank the junior Minister for that point. I thought I was making it clear, but let me make it even more clear. It is not the lack of legislation; it is how that legislation is being implemented. If, despite the effective legislation that is on the statute book, the Equality Commission can devote its time and resources to dealing with the under-representation of Catholics in certain sectors of the workforce but will not devote time and resources to dealing with the under-representation of Protestants in certain sectors of the workforce, the problem is not the legislation; the problem rests with those who are implementing it. The equality of the implementation of that legislation is what is at the heart of this motion.

Mr Peter Weir: Does the Member agree that a further statistic which shows the level of discrimination against the Protestant community in terms of employment in recent years is that, because of the improving economic situation since 1991, Protestant employment has risen by only 11%, whereas Catholic employment has risen by 36%?

Mr Gregory Campbell: I thank my hon Friend for that statistic. It certainly makes a point. It illustrates how those who raise the old bogey-stories about the breakdown of the workforces from years ago — are trying deliberately to miss the point. The point we are making in this motion is that we must talk about the flow of workforces, the appointees and the applicants. That is what tells us what is happening in the workforce now — in the year 2000. That is the important issue — not employment levels in 1962 or in the 1970s and 1980s. We need to know what is happening now. That is what will form the basis for the future breakdowns of all our workforces. That is why this motion needs support from this House. That is why the Equality Commission needs to act to stem the flow and halt the under-representation of Protestant applicants and appointees in the public sector.
Question put.
The Assembly divided: Ayes 21; Noes 27.
AYES
Roy Beggs, Paul Berry, Esmond Birnie, Norman Boyd, Gregory Campbell, Mervyn Carrick, Wilson Clyde, Robert Coulter, Ivan Davis, Nigel Dodds, William Hay, Derek Hussey, Roger Hutchinson, Danny Kennedy, William McCrea, Maurice Morrow, Ian Paisley Jnr, Peter Robinson, Peter Weir, Jim Wells, Sammy Wilson.
NOES
Eileen Bell, P J Bradley, Joe Byrne, John Dallat, Bairbre de Brún, Arthur Doherty, Mark Durkan, John Fee, David Ford, Tommy Gallagher, Michelle Gildernew, Denis Haughey, Joe Hendron, John Kelly, Patricia Lewsley, Alban Maginness, Alasdair McDonnell, Barry McElduff, Gerry McHugh, Francie Molloy, Conor Murphy, Mick Murphy, Dermot Nesbitt, Dara O’Hagan, Éamonn ONeill, Sue Ramsey, John Tierney.
Question accordingly negatived.
Adjourned at 8.19 pm.